HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/16/2018 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
April 11, 2018 3:49 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR
Mayor Roland Velasco
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Marie Blankley
Dion Bracco
Daniel Harney
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Fred Tovar
Cat Tucker
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2018
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. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required, to
complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable
regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A minimum
of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and
Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
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 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408)
846-0204. A sound enhancement system is also available for use in the City Council Chambers.
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 for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of
Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials
are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to
Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a
holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or
Sunday.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
04/16/2018 Page2 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the
people and that City operations are open to the people's review.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE
OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Proclamation Naming April 29 - May 5, 2018 Small Business Week
2. Proclamation Declaring April 15, 2018 – May 13, 2018 as Paint the Town
Purple Days
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
A. 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 not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of
any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the
Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by public members for
Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be
limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.)
A. Gilroy Downtown Business Association Annual Presentation
B. Presentation by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) on
Mobility Partnership Update for US 101/State Route 25 Interchange
Improvements
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
04/16/2018 Page3 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco –Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCRWA Board, Street
Naming Committee, SC Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, URM Task Force
Council Member Tucker – Caltrain Citizen's Advisory Committee, Gilroy Welcome
Center, General Plan Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
Governing and Implementation Boards, Recycling and Waste Commission
Council Member Blankley - Gilroy Sister Cities Association, HSR Sub-Committee, SC
Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Board, South County United for
Health, Street Naming Committee
Mayor Pro Tempore Harney – Gilroy Downtown Business Association, Gilroy Gardens
Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing and Implementation Boards,
Santa Clara Valley Clean Energy Authority, VTA Board (Alternate), VTA Policy Advisory
Committee
Council Member Tovar – Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan Advisory Board, SCRWA
Board, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, Economic Development Corporation Board,
Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board, HSR Station Area Planning Advisory
Committee & HSR Sub-Committee, Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. Water Comm.,
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), VTA Mobility Partnership
Mayor Velasco – Gilroy Youth Task Force, Economic Development Corporation Board,
General Plan Advisory Committee, Historic Heritage Comm ittee, South County Youth
Task Force Policy Team, South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee , VTA South
County City Group, URM Task Force
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring
to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the
consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be
discussed in the order in which it appears.
A. Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Opening of a Recruitment to Fill Three Vacant Seats on the Arts and
Culture Commission
C. Proclamation Recognizing Eagle Scout Brandon Hammer
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Award of Contracts to SDI Presence LLC for Enterprise Resource Planning
and Land Management System Consultant Services
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
04/16/2018 Page4 1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Award contracts to SDI Presence, LLC in the amount of $534,725 for Enterprise
Resource Planning and $232,950 for Land Ma nagement System software
selection and implementation consulting services, and authorize the City
Administrator to execute the agreements.
B. Contract Amendment with CSG Consultants in the Amount of $400,000 for
Engineering Plan Review, Construction Inspection, Transportation and
Capital Project Services
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approve an amendment to the agreement with CSG Consultants in the
amount of $400,000 for engineering plan review, construction inspection,
and transportation and capital project implementation support services.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Community Development Block Grant and Housing Trust Fund Public
Services Funding Renewal Recommendations for FY 2018-19
1. Staff Report: Jim Carney, Planner
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Possible Action:
Approval of funding renewal of the FY 2018-2019 Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Housing Trust Fund funds to twelve nonprofit
agencies.
B. Public Hearing to Establish a List of Properties Subject to the Weed
Abatement Program and Adoption of a Resolution Ordering the Fire Chief
to Abate the Nuisance Arising Out of Weeds Growing and Refuse
Accumulating Upon Property in the City of Gilroy Pursuant to Section 12.51
of the Gilroy Code
1. Staff Report: Rob Allen, Building Official
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Possible Action:
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy ordering the Fire
Chief to abate the nuisance arising out of weeds growing and refuse
accumulating upon property in the City of Gilroy, pursuant to Section 12.51 of the
Gilroy City Code.
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
04/16/2018 Page5 A. Decision on Preferred Alignment for Mobility Partnership US 101/State
Route 25 Interchange Improvements
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Select preferred alignment for the US101/SR 25 interchange improvements and
provide direction to City of Gilroy City Council representatives to the Mobility
Partnership of the preferred alignment.
B. Discussion and Direction Related to Commercial Business Licenses -
Gilroy City Code Chapter 13 - Licenses (Business)
1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff to:
a) Continue to apply the current City Code to commercial property owners; or
b) Revise the City Code through an ordinance amendment to exempt
commercial business properties
C. Consideration of an Allowance for Ground-Level Office Uses in the
Downtown Historic District (Z 18-03)
1. Staff Report: Sue O'Strander, Interim Development Center Manager
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
D. Presentation of Proposed 2018 Fireworks Enforcement Strategy and
Consideration of Modifications to Gilroy City Code Section 10A.14
(Penalties) to Increase the Maximum Fine for Illegal Fireworks Citations
1. Staff Report: Scot Smithee, Police Chief
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Approval of the Police Department’s proposed 2018 fireworks enforcement
strategy; and,
b) Direction to staff to prepare an ordinance amending G ilroy City Code Chapter
10, Section 10A.14 Entitled "Penalties" to increase the maximum fine for
illegal fireworks citations from $500 to $1,000
E. Report on the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Update Process
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
04/16/2018 Page6 1. Staff Report: Sue O'Strander, Interim Development Center Manager
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
F. Approval of Fiscal Year 2019 Capital Improvement Plan Projects for
Funding by SB-1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 budget to incorporate a list of projects funded by SB 1:
The Road Repair and Accountability Act.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a) (4)
Name/Title: Shawna Freels, City Clerk
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, America’s progress has been driven by pioneers who think big, take
risks and work hard; and
WHEREAS, from the storefront shops that anchor Main Street to the high-tech
startups that keep America on the cutting edge, small businesses are the backbone of our
economy and the cornerstones of our nation’s promise; and
WHEREAS, small business owners and entrepreneurs have energy and a passion
for what they do; and
WHEREAS, when we support small business, jobs are created and local
communities preserve their unique culture; and
WHEREAS, because this country’s 28 million small businesses create nearly two
out of three jobs in our economy, including over 70% of the jobs in Gilroy, California; and
WHEREAS, the President of the United States has proclaimed National Small
Business Week every year since 1963 to highlight the programs and services available to
entrepreneurs through the U.S. Small Business Administration and other government
agencies; and
WHEREAS, Gilroy, California supports and joins in this national effort to help
America’s small businesses do what they do best – grow their business, create jobs, and
ensure that our communities remain as vibrant tomorrow as they are today.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City of Gilroy,
California, do hereby proclaim April 29 through May 5, 2018 as
SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
_____________________
Mayor Roland Velasco
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: Proclamation Naming April 29 - May 5, 2018 Small Business Week (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations)
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, Paint the Town Purple is an activity of the American Cancer
Society that promotes community awareness and involvement in the local Relay For Life of
South County; and,
WHEREAS, money raised during Paint the Town Purple of Gilroy supports the
American Cancer Society’s mission to save lives, celebrate lives and lead the fight for a
world without cancer. Donations collected will go to fund life-saving cancer research, free
patient support programs and services, prevention information, education, and detection
programs; and,
WHEREAS, Relay for Life has been present in the Gilroy community for over 20
years and has helped raise over $2,000,000 for the fight against cancer. Our upcoming
May 19th – 20th event will mark our community’s twenty-first year participating in
Relay For Life and our first year in partnering with Morgan Hill to help fight cancer as a
united South County. We encourage all citizens to participate and come together for this
community event; and,
WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society funded more than $150 million in
cancer research grants last year through money raised in communities across the United
States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City of Gilroy,
California, on behalf of the entire City Council do hereby proclaim April 15, 2018 –
May 13, 2018 as
PAINT THE TOWN PURPLE DAYS
in Gilroy and encourage citizens to participate in the activities April 15, 2018 – May
13, 2018, and the Relay for Life South County event at the Morgan Hill Community
Park, May 19th - 20th, and urge citizens to celebrate cancer survivorship; remember loved
ones lost to the disease; and honor caregivers in the fight against cancer. Only together will
we find a cure.
_____________________
Mayor Roland Velasco
2.A.2
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Proclamation Declaring April 15, 2018 – May 13, 2018 as Paint the Town Purple Days (Proclamations, Awards, and
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
04/2/2018
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
April 2, 2018
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Roland Velasco
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Tucker.
2. Invocation
The invocation was given by Pastor Malcolm MacPhail of New Hope Community
Church.
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Shawna Freels announced that the agenda had been posted on March
28, 2018 at 12 p.m., and the revised agenda had been pos ted on March 30, 2018
at 5:45 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mayor Roland Velasco Mayor Present 6:02 PM
Marie Blankley Council Member Present 5:56 PM
Dion Bracco Council Member Present 5:41 PM
Daniel Harney Mayor Pro Tempore Present 6:08 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 6:03 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Present 5:57 PM
Cat Tucker Council Member Present 5:44 PM
B. Orders of the Day
There were no agenda changes.
C. Employee Introductions
There were none.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
Mayor Velasco presented the following proclamations:
1. Proclamation Naming April 17, 2018 Arbor Day in the City of Gilroy
2. Proclamation Naming the Month of April Sexual Assault Awareness
Month
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
6.A
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
04/2/2018
Zachary Hilton spoke on the installation of bike racks in the downtown and the
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission goals for the year, and then suggested the City
offer webstreaming of Commission meetings.
Gary Walton spoke on the Arbor Day celebration thanking staff for reinstating the
Tree City USA initiatives in Gilroy. He then highlighted the benefits of
participating with Tree City USA and the Arbor Day Foundation.
Public comment was then closed.
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Tucker reported on the General Plan Advisory Committee
meeting describing the land use alternative work. She then announced the
upcoming public outreach meeting.
Council Member Blankley announced that she had attended her first SCRWA
meeting.
Council Member Tovar recognized the Robert Guerrero gym grand opening and
spoke on the upcoming Gilroy Art and Wine Stroll and Poppy Jasper Film
Festival event in the downtown on Saturday.
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz congratulated CARAS for their successful Cesar
Chavez luncheon, and announced the Leadership Gilroy Spring Fling fundraiser
at Sarah's Vineyard.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Tucker requested that a study session workshop be held on
economic development in conjunction with the EDC, and suggested a consultant
facilitate the session. The full Council agreed to agendize the study session.
Council Member Tucker then asked that a progress report on the 2040 General
Plan process be presented to incorporate economic development . The full
Council agreed to agendize the report .
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR Items B and C
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
B. Proclamations Honoring Gilroy Natives Randy Spendlove and Kevin Rubio
During the Poppy Jasper International Film Festival
C. Deaccession of Gilroy Museum Artifacts and Removal of Portrait of Former
Mayor Roberta H. Hughan from the City’s Art Collection, Per Her Request
A. Approval of the Minutes of the March 19, 2018 Regular Meeting
6.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
04/2/2018
RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 0]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
ABSTAIN: Marie Blankley, Dion Bracco
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
There were none.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were none.
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were none.
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of Attendance Policies of City Boards, Commissions and
Committees
The item was introduced by City Administrator Gonzalez and the staff report was
presented by City Clerk Freels.
There were no public comments.
Direction was given to staff to prepare a policy of uniform attendance standards
for all City Policy Bodies, allowing for 2 excused absences of regularly scheduled
meetings per calendar year, and a requirement that 72 hour notice be provided
for absences.
Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator Gonzalez presented information on a recent trip he and the
Engineering team had taken to the City of Fresno to review their experiences
with the High Speed Rail Authority related to the design and development of the
railway.
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no report.
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Faber explained that the City Council was entering into closed
session on Items A and B as discussion in closed session would unavoidably
prejudice the city's position in the case.
There were no public comments.
6.A
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
04/2/2018
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL— EXISTING LITIGATION;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Sub. (d) of
GC Section 54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (3) (a); 1 Case as
Defendant; Alma Ramirez, an individual; H.A. and L.A., both minors, as
successors in interest to Hector Alvarez, deceased, by and through their
guardian ad litem Alma Ramirez; vs. City of Gilroy, Adam Moon and Does 1
through 10, inclusive; Case Filed: 2/7/17; Case Number 5:17 -CV-00625-HRL
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision
(d) of Government Code Section 54956.9, and Gilroy City Code Section
17A.11 (3) (b) One (1) Case as Defendant
C. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a) (4)
Name/Title: Shawna Freels, City Clerk
Possible Action:
Motion to Adjourn to Closed Session on Items A and B.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
ADJOURNMENT
The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:23 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Minutes of the April 2, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Opening of a Recruitment to Fill Three Vacant Seats on the Arts
and Culture Commission
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Shawna Freels
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Open a four (4) week recruitment effort to fill three vacant seats on the Arts and
Culture Commission.
BACKGROUND
There are two seats on the Arts and Culture Commission with terms ending 12/31/2018
and 12/31/2021, which have remained vacant since the 2018 annual recruitment period,
and we have recently received a resignation from a seated member with a term ending
12/31/2020.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that Council open a recruitment period for a four-week period, from
April 17, 2018 to May 15, 2018, to compile applications to fill these vacancies.
Following the close of the application period, interviews will be scheduled with the City
Council at your May 21, 2018 regular City Council meeting.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
6.B
Packet Pg. 13
A thorough public outreach campaign to fill these pending vacancies is planned with
flyers being distributed through social media, the City website and electronic newsletters
as well as to all of the various partner entities of the City.
Attachments:
1. 3 Seats ACC Recruitment Flyer
6.B
Packet Pg. 14
3 Seats Open on the
ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION
1-year, 2-year and 3-year terms
available
APPLY NOW!
Applications are available online www.cityofgilroy.org
and in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street
The City Council will interview applicants Monday, May 21st at 6 p.m.
in City Council Chambers at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street
Applications may be submitted to: shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org, or by mail to:
Gilroy City Clerk’s Office, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
Applications must be received by
Tuesday, May 15th at 5:00 p.m.
Call the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office (408) 846-0204 with questions.
Arts & Culture Commission: This seven (7) member body advises
Recreation Staff and the City Council on matters pertaining to cultural
and artistic activities to encourage, promote and stimulate the gr owth
of broad-based arts in the community, and meets the 2nd Tuesday of
each month at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 3 Seats ACC Recruitment Flyer (1647 : ACC Recruitment)
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
Whereas, Brandon Hammer began his Scouting Journey in 2005 as
a cub scout with Pack 794 in Gilroy, CA where he earned his Arrow of
Light prior to bridging to Boy Scouts in 2011, and joining the Phoenix
patrol; and
Whereas, he grew through the ranks of Boy Scouts and attended
Camp Hi-Sierra for many summers where he earned Brave, Warrior,
Medicine Man and Chief Rank. He also served in the leadership positions of
Assistant Patrol Leader, Den Chief and Quartermaster for his Troop; and
Whereas, Brandon has earned 30 merit badges, with small boat
sailing, rifle shooting and dog care being his favorite; and
Whereas, Brandon completed his Eagle Scout project for the Gilroy
Unified School District, Mt. Madonna High School in September 2017.
With the help of his fellow Scouts, he helped design and build an outdoor
classroom, and garden for the science department.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City of
Gilroy, on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby wish to recognize
Brandon Hammer
for achieving the award of distinction of
Eagle Scout
by
Boy Scouts of America
_____________________
Mayor Roland Velasco
6.C
Packet Pg. 16 Communication: Proclamation Recognizing Eagle Scout Brandon Hammer (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award of Contracts to SDI Presence LLC for Enterprise Resource
Planning and Land Management System Consultant Services
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Scott Golden
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Award contracts to SDI Presence, LLC in the amount of $534,725 for Enterprise
Resource Planning and $232,950 for Land Management System software selection and
implementation consulting services, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the
agreements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2017, the City Council adopted a budget that approved one -time expenditures
of $1 million for the City’s new Land Management System (LMS) software and $2
million for a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. These appropriations
not only included funds for the actual software, but also included funding for
professional consulting services required to ensure that the project achieves its’ primary
goals – to replace the City’s outdated planning and financial software systems.
The City conducted two separate Request For Proposal (RFP) processes and received
four responses for the LMS and nine responses for the ERP with many of the responses
from the same company for both projects. After proposal review, vendor presentations,
7.A
Packet Pg. 17
and client reviews, the City is recommending to the Council that they approve the award
of both contracts to SDI Presence LLC (dba NexLevel) in the amount not to exceed of
$232,950 for Land Management Service and $534,725 for Enterprise Resource
Planning selection and implementation consulting.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PROCESS
In August 2017 two separate project steering committees were created to evaluate and
select a consultant for each project. The ERP committee was comprised of
representatives from each City department, whereas the LMS committee was
comprised of Community Development and Finance Department staff. Each group was
tasked with developing an RFP evaluation process that included interviews and
presentations from potential consultants.
The City received nine vendor responses for the ERP project with the committee
interviewing three finalists. Four responses were received for the LMS project with
three vendors selected to participate in interviews. There were several vendors that
submitted proposals for both projects; however no evaluation scoring preference was
given to awarding a contract to the same vendor for both projects, nor were any cost-
savings expected.
Proposals were evaluated based on project understanding and approach, project team
experience and quality of service, presentation and cost.
Based on the evaluation committee’s review of the proposals, NexLevel was selected to
manage both projects under separate contracts. NexLevel is a Carmichael, California -
based technology consultant company (they were the only California company to submit
a response) that has performed similar services for over 110 California agencies
including the cities of: Fresno, Paso Robles, Newport Beach, Redwood City, Santa
Clara and Glendale.
The General Project Manager for both projects will be the same constractor; however
each project will have a different consulting team.
NexLevel has estimated that the ERP project will require 3,200 hours of consultant time,
whereas the LMS project is estimated to require 1,300 hours. NexLevel has provided a
breakdown of anticipated hours for each phase and task. Their cost and time estimates
were comparable to other RFP responses.
BACKGROUND
Land Management System
Since 2002, the Community Development Department has used SunGard - Community
Plus to support the Planning, Code Enforcement, and Building Divisions. This system
has limited capabilities, and accordingly, does not allow staff to provide efficient
customer service to the development community. For example, there is no method to
conduct electronic plan reviews, schedule building inspections online, integrate field
7.A
Packet Pg. 18
inspection notes and/or photos, nor is there a portal for customer access. These
functions are not considered luxuries – they are now industry standards.
The Community Plus system is at the end of its useful life and product support is
expected to terminate in the near future. The current land management system is a
desktop-based system which does not permit field access or remote functionality.
A new LMS will provide an opportunity for customer service enhancements – online
customer access which would allow customers to schedule meetings for plan review,
check the status of their project, and facilitate concurrent revie w from multiple functional
areas.
Enterprise Resource Planning
The City has utilized Sungard-Pentamation (Sungard) since 1998 for its financial
software. Sungard is considered a legacy software solution meaning it is outdated,
obsolete, and suffers from compatibility issues with current operating systems,
browsers, and information technology infrastructure.
Product support has continued to diminish as the original vendor has been bought and
sold several times and with each transaction the amount of produc t support has been
reduced. The current system is a UNIX based terminal emulation environment which is
being replaced industry-wide to web and app based delivery models. As is typically
found with aging systems, end users find the current system outdated, inefficient,
cumbersome, and at times unresponsive to the point that the system is not utilized and
users tend to create work-arounds to meet their analytical/informational needs.
The City went live with the latest versions of SunGard Pentamation FinancePlus and
CommunityPlus in July of 2015. Upgrading the software at that time was necessary to
move off of aged and unsupported hardware. The newer versions of the software
provided a slightly more modern interface, but the underlying functionality is essentially
unchanged from the previous versions which originated in the 1990s. The City did not
realize any improved business processes as a result of the upgrade. The upgrade did,
however, disrupt some of the existing system functionality as numerous issues occurred
when it went live.
Due to SunGard’s lack of responsiveness to the issues, City staff found workarounds to
continue functioning. However some of these issues still exist to this day as the City
currently has 22 open technical support cases for software issues resulting in daily
system errors that have prevented full utilization of the current SunGard upgrade.
Some of these have been unresolved for over two years – issues that require continual
follow-ups from City staff. Staff is forced to either create a temporary work around or
determine that the use of the desired function is not possible/feasible resulting in further
underutilization of the system.
7.A
Packet Pg. 19
Despite repeated follow-ups over time and a site visit by our SunGard account
representative late last year where our concerns were expressed; there has been very
little movement on case resolution.
Overall the corporate side of the formerly SunGard Public Sector Inc. seems to be
somewhat in transition as the public sector segment of the SunGard business was sold
in 2017, and is now called Superion. Many of the direct customer support contacts we
used to work with are no longer with the company and Superion has provided no
indication that the Pentamation product line has any future.
Superion’s OneSolution product is the only Public Administration software solution listed
for Finance and TRAKiT is listed similarly for Community Development. Pentamation is
not shown as an existing product on Sungard’s website and even using Pentamation as
a web search term yields “no search results.”
A new ERP will integrate several administrative modules included paperless interaction
between Finance, Human Resources, Planning, Public Works, and Public Safety
Departments. Having consolidated data in one system will create staff efficiencies,
improve business workflows, and improve the access and accuracy of data – functions
that are currently located in disparate systems.
For both projects, the consultant is required to:
1) Develop and document detailed existing (as is) and proposed (to be)
functional and data requirements, including business process work flow for all
City departments for the new ERP/LMS software.
2) Prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be issued by the City for new LMS
and ERP software and implementation services that will allow for thorough
comparison of all qualified vendors. The RFP must be prepared in
compliance with the City Purchasing Code and applicable California
Government Codes and Statutes.
3) Lead the City through the ERP/LMS software selection process including
coordinating software demonstrations and on-site visits. Assist with the
identification of potential risks and issues to ensure the City makes a quality
selection decision, which achieves the City’s ERP/LMS requirements.
4) Participate in contract negotiations with selected vendor to insure a
perf ormance-based contract, where milestones are paid when accomplished.
5) Guide the City through the implementation of the selected software and
assist with the identification and assessment of process changes necessary
f or a successful ERP/LMS software roll-out.
6) Perform the duties of an Executive Project Manager through all phases of
this project, ending with the successful implementation of new ERP/LMS
software:
7.A
Packet Pg. 20
a) Act as a liaison between the project steering committee, vendor(s)
and City staff.
b) W ork with vendor and project team to develop and manage a
comprehensive project plan, detailing project stages, milestones
and resources.
c) Manage the change management process with oversight from the
Finance Director/Community Development Director for both the
project and the selected vendor contract.
d) Insure adequate knowledge transfer to City staff to configure,
manage, operate and support the new ERP/LMS software.
7) Provide project status reports, deliver presentations, act as public information
officer to media, Council, Boards & Commissions, other outside agencies, and
citizens, as deemed appropriate by the steering committee.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could decide not to award a contract to NexLevel, however this is not
recommended as the selection of the ERP/LMS consultant is essential in
providing qualified project management and ensuring that both projects are
completed on time and with budget. The City does not currently have in-house
staff expertise, nor time available to dedicate to the project.
2. Council could direct staff to select a different vendor – this is not recommended
as NexLevel ranked higher than any other vender.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no additional fiscal impact as Council approved the one-time appropriations for
both LMS and ERP replacement as part of the FY 17-18 Adopted Budget.
The not-to-exceed contract amounts of $232,950 for LMS and $534,725 for ERP are
consistent with cost assumptions included in the FY 17-18 decision packages. The City
will be billed monthly for time and materials.
Of the $3 million budget appropriated by Council in June 2017 for both projects,
approximately $2.2 million remains.
CONCLUSION
The City of Gilroy has begun the process of replacing the ERP and LMS software. The
partnership with NexLevel will ensure that both projects ha ve considerable expertise
and oversight.
As required in the RFP, Council will receive scheduled project reports which will include
financial performance. Both projects are proposed to be broken into six phases. The
proposed conversion process of both projects entails an implementation team of City
7.A
Packet Pg. 21
staff working in concert with the NexLevel to review current workflows, identify process
that need improvement, and conduct a needs assessment for all stakeholder
departments within the City.
In addition to the implementation teams, staff level buy-in has begun through the use of
steering committees for each project, made up of members from each department of the
City. The steering committees participated in the crafting of the RFPs, evaluation of the
proposals and interviews of the consultants.
NEXT STEPS
If approved, the contracts will enable the ERP/LMS project to move to the next step –
business process review.
7.A
Packet Pg. 22
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Contract Amendment with CSG Consultants in the Amount of
$400,000 for Engineering Plan Review, Construction Inspection,
Transportation and Capital Project Services
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Approve an amendment to the agreement with CSG Consultants in the amount
of $400,000 for engineering plan review, construction inspection, and
transportation and capital project implementation support services.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Land Development, Transportation and Capital Project groups in Public Works have
experienced challenges related to vacancies and staff turnover coupled with increased
development activities, transportation issues, and implementation of new capital projects.
To meet the operational needs of the department, CSG Consultants (CSG) has continued
providing support in engineering, construction and project management activities. Staff is
requesting Council’s approval to amend the current contract by approximately $400,000 for
services from March 2018 through the end of June 2018. The services will be paid out of
Plan Check and Inspection fees as well as Capital Projects expense accounts.
BACKGROUND
7.B
Packet Pg. 23
On February 26, 2018, Council approved a second contract amendment for CSG
consultants in the amount of $950,000. This amendment will allow payment for services
rendered from August 2017 through February 2018. Staff also informed Council of the need
to continue providing services while filling vacant positions and building capacity in the
Engineering Division.
The original contract with CSG was signed in July 2015. The contract was for a three year
term with two possible one year extensions. The estimated value of the contract at the time
was $450,000. Since the signing of the original contract, the working conditions, projects
and staffing level in the Engineering Division has prompted two contract amendments that
have been approved by Council. The following table provides a summary of associated
contract amendments and the total contract amounts to date:
ANALYSIS
This proposed third contract amendment seeks to pay for services through the end of
June 2018 in the following functional areas and job categories:
Consultant Job
Category/Positi
on
Responsibility/Assign
ment
Hours per
Week/Hour
ly Rate
Supported
Projects/Program
s (Select list)
Remark
Associate
Engineer
Land Development
projects
16-24/$145 Multi-family
residential (select
list below)
New City
Hire started
on
Contract
Term
Authorized
Amount
Additional
Authorized
Service Period
(covered by
authorized
amount)
Accumulated
Total
Remarks
Original July 2,
2015 -
June 30,
2018
$450,000 July 2015 -
April 2017
$450,000 Funds
exhausted
prior to end of
original
contract term
First
Amendment
July 2,
2015 - May
1, 2019
$485,000 –
(Council
Approved –
April 17, 2017)
June 2017 -
July 2017
$935,000 Additional
funds
exhausted by
July 2017
Second
Amendment
July 2,
2015- May
1, 2019
$950,000
(Council
Approved –
March 5,
2018)
August 2017-
February 2018
$1,885,000 Invoices paid
thru February
2018
7.B
Packet Pg. 24
Cambridge
Place
Chappell
Subdivision
Cannery
Place
Monterey
Apts
Harvest
Park II
Kern
Avenue
Apts
Commercial
projects (select list
below)
Gilroy PFG
Hampton
Inn
Chevron
Gas Station
McCarthy
Business
Park
Wren
Property –
GUSD
Architectural and
Site Review
Projects:
Gilroy Self-
Storage
Addition
Da Silva
Residence
Heartland
Triangle
(Hoey
Triangle)
Promise
Land
Brewery
StorQuest
Express
Self-
Storage
Larson
Steel
Watson
03/19/2018
Associate
Engineer
Land Development
projects
16-24/$145 New City
Hire started
on
03/26/2018
7.B
Packet Pg. 25
Residence
Building
addition/modificatio
n projects:
Swimming
Pool
548 SQ FT
detached
unit
8755 Wild
Iris New
Home
731
Sullivan
Way
6575 Eagle
Ridge Ct
360 & 380
Obata Ct
400 IOOF
Ave
7558
Chestnut St
Old Bank
CIP Project
Manager
Capital and Decision
Package projects
24/$185 • 24" First Street
Water Main
• City Hall
Backup
Generator
Upgrade
• Installation of
New Exterior
City Hall Safety
Lighting
• Aquatic Center
Shade
Structure
• Ronan Channel
Trail
• Facilities Needs
Assessment
• Corp Yard
Need
Assessment &
Modernization
Plan
• Gilroy Arts
Center HVAC
Interviews in
April 2018
for Senior
Civil
Engineer -
CIP
CIP Project
Engineer
Capital and Decision
Package projects
40/$145 Interviews in
April 2018
for Senior
Civil
Engineer -
CIP
7.B
Packet Pg. 26
Replacement
• CDBG
Capital/Las
Animas
Veterans Park
• Monterey Road
Rehab
• Corp Yard
Storm Water
Compliance
Improvements
• Large Meter
Replacement
• Paint
Reservoirs
Construction
Inspector
Land Development
Construction projects;
Sidewalk Program;
Storm water Inspections
40/$130 Advertise in
May 2108
for
Engineering
Tech/Inspect
or position
Engineering
Tech/Admin
support
Encroachment permits;
drafting PIA; service calls
40/$105 Advertise in
May 2018
for
Engineering
Tech/Inspect
or position
As of March 26, 2018, two Engineer I positions have been filled, and two Engineering
Tech/Inspector positions are expected to be filled in June 2018. Furthermore, the Senior
Civil Engineer for the Capital Projects position is in the first phase of the selection
process and is expected to be filled in May 2018. Based on the expected level of
staffing, and the type and complexity of projects, the estimated cost of staff support is
$100,000 per month. This is an estimate of current and projected needs and is subject
to revision with changing constraints and resources. Staff also expects that most of the
7.B
Packet Pg. 27
new staff will be capable of carrying out the responsibilities currently provided by
consultants in a relatively short amount of time.
The department has developed a contract tracking spreadsheet with complete project
information including: Project Manager/Point of contact, contract amounts, expenditure s
year to date, amendments, and contract expiration dates. This spreadsheet report is
reviewed monthly by the department Management Analyst and Public Works Director to
monitor the status of the contracts. Contracts with depleting value, contracts
approaching their expiration date, or other items of question are addressed promptly.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The proposed budget amendment takes into consideration the salary savings from the
vacant engineering positions, the plan check and inspection fund balances and
revenues. To meet the core needs of the department while building capacity and
resiliency through the end of June 2018, staff is requesting Council’s approval for
additional funds in the amount of $400,000.
There are sufficient funds to pay for these services:
1. Due to the Senior Engineer and Engineering Technician p osition vacancies in the
department, there are significant salary savings amounting to approximately
$132,533.
2. In addition, as of April 10, 2018, there is a balance of $2,474,020 in the Plan
Check and Inspection fee revenue account which is $596,000 higher than the
budgeted amount of $1,877,684. There are more than two hundred residential
units and six large commercial developments that have either begun
construction or will commence construction this fiscal year. It is projected that a
total amount of $3,000,000 will be collected for plan check and inspection
revenue in FY 17 and early FY 18. This is consistent with the increase in
development activity of which additional revenue will pay for the additional
development related services.
CONCLUSION
The Land Development, Transportation and Capital Project groups in Public Works
provide services and perform functions related to the construction, permitting and
preservation of City infrastructure and the environment. In the City’s short term need,
contract consultants are a valuable resource. CSG has been very responsive to the City
by providing temporary staffing. While, the Public Works Department continues to fill
vacant positions, build capacity and set systems in place, staff requests approval of this
amendment in order to more effectively perform plan checks and inspections and
deliver vital projects through June 2018.
Attachments:
7.B
Packet Pg. 28
1. CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement
2. CSG Consultants - 2015 Agreement - Amendment No. 1 pages 1-2
3. 2018-02-27 Second Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG
Signed Only
4. 2018-04-16 Third Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG Signed
Only
7.B
Packet Pg. 29
'
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
(For contracts over $5,000 • CONSULTANT)
This AGREEMENT made this znd day of July, 2012_, between:
CITY: City of Gilroy, having a principal place of business at
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California
and CONSULTANT: CSG Consultants. Inc., having a principal place of business at 550 Pilgrim
Drive, Foster City, CA 94404.
ARTICLE 1. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement will become effective on July 2. 2015 and will continue in effect through June
30. 201 Sunless 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
tem1inate this Agreement regardless of any other provision stated herein. c..· ll
Initial
ARTICLE 2. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
It is the express intention of the parties that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not
an employee, agent, joint venturer or partner of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee
between CITY and CONSULTANT or tmy employee or agent of CONSULTANT. Both parties
acknowledge that CONSULTANT is not an employee for state or federal tax purposes.
CONSULT ANT shall not be entitled to any of the rights or benefits afforded to CITY'S
employees, including, without limitation, disability or unemployment insurance, workers'
compensation, medical insurance, sick leave, retirement benefits or any other employment
benefits. CONSULTANT shall retain the right to perform services lor others during the term of
this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULT ANT
A. Specific Services
CONSULTANT agrees to: Perform the services as outlined in Exhibit "A" ("Specific
Provisions") and Exhibit "B" ("Scope of Services"), within the time periods described in
Exhibit "C" ("Milestone Schedule").
B. Method of Performing Services
CONSULT ANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the above-
described services. CITY shall have no right to, and shall not, control the manner or determine
the method of accomplishing CONSULTANT'S services.
483S22fi7C0361v1
LACID4706083 -I-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
C. Employment of Assistant.s
CONSULTANT may, at the CONSULTANT'S own expense, employ such assistants as
CONSULTANT deems necessary to perform the services required of CONSULTANT by this
Agre~ment, subject to the problbit'ion 11ga4tst assignment and subcontracting contained in
Article 5 below. CITY may not contrQ~ direct, or supervise CONSULTANT'S assistants in the
performance of those services. CONSULT ANT assumes full and. sole responsibility for the
payment of all compensation and expenses of these assistants and for all state and federal income
t~.l'. unemployment insurance, Social Security, disabili\y insurance and other applicable
withholding.
D. Place of Work
CONSULT ANT shall perform the services required by this Agreement at any place or location
Md at such times. ;ts CONSULT ANT shall determine is necessary to properly amj timely perforiil
CONSULT ANT'S services.
ARTICLE 4. COMPENSATiON
A. Consideration
In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay
CONSULT ANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit "D" ("Payment Schedule"). In· no event
however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULT ANT exceed $450;000.00.
:a. Invoices
CONSULT ANT shall submit invoices for all services rendered.
C. Payment
Payment shall be due accord\ng to the payment schedule set.forth in Exhibit "D". No payment
will be made unless CONSULTANT has first provided CitY with a written receipt gf 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 MY
portion of any invoice, CITY shall notify CONSULTANT. of the objection within thirty (30)
days from receipt of the invoice, give reasons for the objection, and pay that portion of the
invoice not in dispute. It shall not constitute a defuult or breach of this Agreement for CitY not
to pay any \nvoiced amounts to which it has objected until the objection has been resolved by
mutual agreement of the parties.
D. Expenses
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incident to the petfotinance of
s~rvices for CITY, including but not limited to, all costs of equipment used ot provided by
CONSULT ANT, all fees, lines, Jicem;es, bonds or tl)Xes required. of or imposed against
CONSULT ANT and all other of CONSULTANT'S costs of doing bus\ness. CITY shall not be
4!135-2267-D361v1
lAC\04706063 -2-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
responsible for any expenses incurred by CONSULTANT in performing services for CITY,
except for those expenses constituting "direct expense.s" re_ferenced on E_xhi_bit ".:\."
ARTICLE 5. OBLIGATIONS OF CONSULTANT
A. Tools and Instrumentalities
CONSULTANT shall supply all tools and instrumentalities required to perform the services
under this Agreement at its sole cost and expense. CONSULT ANT is not required to purchase
or rent any tools, equipment or services from CITY.
B. _ Workers' Compensation
CONSl)LTANf agrees to provide workers' compensation insurance for CONSULTANT'S
employees· and agents and agrees to hold harmless, defend with counsel acceptable to CITY and
indemnify CITY, its officers, representatives, agents and employees from and against any and all
claims, suits, damages, costs, fees, demands, causes of action, losses, liabilities and ei<peilses,
incl\ldi!\g wiJIJ.out Iim.i.tation reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of any injury, disability, or
death ofany of CONSULTANT'S employees.
C. Indemnification of Liability, Duty to Defend
L As · to professional liability, to the fullest extent penpitted by l_aw,
CONSULTANT shall defend, through counsel approved by CITY (which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers,. representatives, agents
and employees against any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of actiori,
losses, )jabi):ities ®d expenses, including without limitation attorneys' fees, to the extent ~ing
or resulting directly or indirectly from any willful or negligent acts, errors· or onrissions of
CONSULTAN;t or CONSULTANT'S assistants, employees or agents, including all claims
relating to the injury or death of any person or damage to any property.
2. As to other liability, to the fullest extent peflllitted by law, CONSULTANT gr,illl
defend, through co.unsel 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, demgmds, ca11ses of action, losses, li~bi!it,i~ an,d
expenses, including without limitation attorneys' fees, arising or resulting directly or indirectly
from any act or onrission of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANt'S assistants, employees or
agents, including aU claims telating to the injury or deaih -of any person ot damage to any
property.
D. Insurance
In addition to any other ol:>!igations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shal~ at no cost to
CITY, obtain and maintain throughout the term of this Agre~ll).ent: (a) Colll!llercial Liabi.Jity
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,
-3-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
· including the loss of use thereof; and (b) Professional Liability Insurance (Errors & Omissions)
with il ii)inintum coverage of $1,000,000 per occwte)lce or claim, a.nd $2,000,000 !)ggregE~te;
provided however, Professional Liability Insur(lnce 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 th.e 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
clalln.Hn~de policy forin with a retroactive date prior to the earlier of the effective date of the
contract or ·the beginning of the contract work, CONSULTANT must purchase so called
Hextencied reporting" or •itail" coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of
work, which must also show a retl'Qactive date that is before the earlier of the effective date of
the cO.i:itrl).ct ot the beginning of the contract work. As a condition precedent to CITY'S
obligations under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall furnish written evidence of such ·
coverage.(naming CITY, its officers and employees as additional insureds on the Comprehensive
Liability inSurance policy referred to in ( <~) immediately above via a specific endorsement) and
reql)irfug 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 CONSl.iLT ANT under this Agreement may be assigned or subcontracted by
CONSULT ANT without the prior written consent of CITY, which CITY may withhold in Its
sole and !)bsolute d~retion
F. State and Federal Taxes
As CONSULTANT is not CITY'S employee, CONSULTANT .shall be responslbie for paying
all required state and federal taxes. Without lin)i~ing the foregpijlg, CONSULT ANT
acknowledges and agrees that:
• CITY will not withhold FICA (Social Security) from CONSULT ANT'S
payments;
• CITY'will not make state or federal unemployment insurance contributions on
CONSULTANT'S behalf; .
• CITY will not withhold state or federal income tax from payment to
CONSULTANT;
• CITY will not make disability insurance contributions on behalf of
CONSULTANT;
• CITY will not obtain workers' compensation insurance on behalf of
CONSULTANT.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
ARTICLE 6. OBLIGATIONS OF CITY
A. Coop~ration of City
ClTY agrees to respond to all rejj.son_11ble requests of CONSULT ANT am:! provide access, at
reasonable times following receipt by CITY of reasonable notice, to all documents reasonably
necessary to the perfonnance of CONSULT ANT'S duties under this Agreement.
B. Assignment
CITY may assign this Agreement or any duties or obligations thereunder to a successor
governmental entity without the consent of CONSULTANT. Such assignment shall.not release
CONSULT ANT from any of CONSULT ANT'S duties or obligations under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 7. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Sale of Consultant's Business/ Death of Consultant.
CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of the proposed sale of CONSULTANT's business no later
. than thirty (30) days prior to any such sale. CITY shall have the option of terminating this
Agreement within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice of sale. ~y sue!\ CU:Y
termination pursuant to this Article 7.A shall be in writing and sent to the address for noti<;es to
CONS'tJL t ANT set forth io Exhibit A, Subsection V.H.; no later than thirty (30) days after
CITY' receipt ofsilch notice of sale.
If CONSULT ANT is an individual, this Agreement shall be deemed autol)llltjcally termin.ated
upondeathofCONSULTANT.
B. Termination by City for Default of Consultant
Should CONSULT ANT default il;t ~!;te performance oftl;ljs Agree111eQ.t or liJi'\teti!llly bre.llcb .ailY
of its provisions, CITY, at CITY'S option, may terminate this Agreement by giving written
notification to CONSULTANT. For the purposes of this section, materia\ breach of this
Agreement shall ioclude, but not be limited to the following:
I. CONSULTANT'S failure to professionally and/or timely perform any of t]).e
services contemplated by this Agreement.
2. CONSULTANT'S breach of any ofits representations, warranties or covertlitltS
contained io this Agreement.
CONSULT ANT shall be entitled to payment only for work completed io accordance with the
terms ofthis Agreement through the date-ofthe termination notice, as reaSonably detetmined by
CITY, provided that sue)!. p!!yment $l!..il,ll not exceed the. amounts set forth in th'is Agreement for
the tasks described on Exhibit C" which have been fully, COII)j)etently lind tim.ely rendered by
CONSULT ANT. Notwithstandiog the foregoing, if CITY tetminlites this Agreement <ll!e to
CONSULTANT'S default io the perfunnance of this Agreement or material breach by
CONSULT ANT of any of its provisions, then io addition to any other rights and remedies CI'fY
4835-2267-0361v1
LAC\04l06083 -5-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
may have, CONSULTANT shall reimburse CITY, within ten (10) days after demand, for any
and all costs and expenses incun:ed by CITY in order to complete the tasks constiruting the ·scope
of work as described in this Agt~ement, to the extent such costs and expenses exceed the
amounts CITY would have been obligated to pay CONSULTANT for the performance of that
task pursuant to this Agreement.
C. Termination for Failure to Make Agreed-Upon Payments
Should CITY fail to pay CONSULT ANT 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 constill:ites a default
under this Agreement, CONSULTANT, at the CONSULtANt;S option, may terminate this
Agreement if such default is not remedied by CITY within thirty (30) days after demand for such
Pa)'lllent .ill given by CONSULTANT to CITY.
D. Transition after Termination
Upon termination, CONSULT ANT shall immediately stop work, unless cessation could
potenti.ally cal.)se any dam!)ge or harin to person or property, in wbicb case CONSULTANT shall
cease such work as soon as it is safe to do so. CONSULT ANT shall incur no further expenses in
connection with this Agreement. CONSULT ANT shall promptly deliver to CITY ail work done
toward completion of the services required hereunder, and shall .act in such a manner as to
facilitiilte any the assumption of CONSULT ANT's duties by any new consultant hired by the
CITY to complete such services.
ARTICLE 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. · Amendment & Modification
No amendments, modifications, .alterations or changes to !he terms of this Agreeme1lt shalll;>e
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 CONSULT ANT shall comply fully with aU
applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("the Act") in its current
form and as it may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall also require .such
compliance of all subcontl'\lctors. perfotming work under this Agreement, subject to the
prohibition against assignment and subcontracting contained in Article 5 above. The
CONSULT ANT shall defend with counsel acceptable to CITY, indemnify and hold barm:less. the
CITY OF GILROY, its officers, employees, agents and representatives from and against all suits,
claims, demands, damages, costs, .cau:res of action, li:>ss~s, l.iabUities, expenses afid fees,
including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees; that may arise out of any violations of
the Act by the CONSULT ANT, its subcontractors, or the officers, employees, agents or
representatives of either. ·
4835,2287-0381v1
LAC\04706083 -6-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
C. Attorneys' Fees
If any action at law or in equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to l'nforce
ot interpret the provi_sions of this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable
attorneys' fees, which may be set by the court in the same action or fu a separate action brought
for ihat purpose, in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled.
D. Captions
The captions and headings of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of the
Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered nor referred to for resolving
questions of interpretation.
E. Compliance with Laws
The CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of all State and National laws and allJ11unicipal
ordmances 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
Wilde, Mlf of a\1 such orders and decrees of bodies qr tribunals having any j\lrisdiction or
!)l;lthority over the same. Without limiting the foregoing, CONSULTANT agrees to observe the
provisions of the Municipal Code of the CITY OF GILROY, obligating every contractor or
-subcontractor under a contract or subcontract to the CITY OF GILROY for public works or for
goods or services to refrain fro in discriminatory employment or subccnttactiilg practices on the
basis ofthe•tace, color, sex, religious creed, national origin, ancestry of any employee, applicant
for employment, or any potential subcontractor. ·
F. Conflict oflnterest
CONSULTANT certifies that to the best of its knowledge, no CITY employee or offi!le ofaoy
public l!gency interested in this Agreement has any pecuniary interest in the l;nisiil~s.s of
CONSULT ANT and that no person associated with CONSULT ANT has any interest that wou.!d
constitute a conflict of interest in any manner or degree as to the execution or performance-of
this Agreement.
G. Entire Agreement
This Agreement supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, between the,
parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for GITY apd
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 acknowiedges that no
representations, inducements, promises or agreements, or:ally or otherwise, have beep tilJlde by
anY party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, .w)lich are not embodj~d 4ereill, and thilt J:IO
other agreement,. statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding.
No other agreements or conversation with any offic.er, agent or employee of CITY prior to
execution ofthis 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.
4835-2267·0361v1
lAC\04706083 -7-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
H. Governing Law and Venue
This Agreement shall he governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California without regard to the conflict of laws provisions of any jurisd.iction. The exclusive
jurisdiction and venue with respect to any and all disputes arising hereunder shall be in state and
federal courts located in Santa Clara County, California.
I. Notices
Any notice to be given hereunder by either party to the other may be effected either by personal
delivery in writing or by mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid with return receipt
requested. Mailed notices shall be addressed to the parties at the addresses appearing in
.Exhibit "A", Section V.I-1. 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
CONSULT ANT agrees that waiver by CITY of any one or more of the conditions of
pe1formance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of
pe1formance under this Agreement.
.Executed at Gilroy, California, on the date and year first above written.
CONSULTANT:
CSG Consultants, Inc.
Social Security or axpayer
Identification Number 91-2053 749
4835-2267-036M
LACID470€083 -8-
CITY:
CITY OF GILROY
By:~~
Name: ~as l ~a.gffi>td J. Ef.d ware/ Te We~
Title: v City Administrator
Interim
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
4835-226 7 -0361v1
LAC\04706083 -9-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
EXHffiiT "A"
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS
I. PROJECT MANAGER
CONSULTANT shall provide the services indicated on the attached Exhibit "8", Scope of
, Servic.es ("Services"). (All exhibits referenced are incorporated herein by reference.) To
accomplish. that ·end, CONSULTANT agrees to assign Hatem Ahmed, 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, CONSULT ANT 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.
ll. NOTICE TO PROCEED/COMPLETION OF SERVICE
A. NOTICE TO PROCEED
CONSULTANT shall commence the Services upon delivery to CONSULTANt of a written
"Nptice to Proceed", which Notice to Proceed shall be in the form of a written colillmiruc.atioil
from desigl).ated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed may be in the form of e•ina!l, fax at
ietter authorizing commencement of the Services. For pmposes of this Agreement, Maria ·
Angeles shall be the designated City contact person(s). Notice to Proceed shall be deemed to
have beeii delivered upon actual receipt by CONSULT ANT or if otherwise delivered as provided
in the Section V.H. (''Notices") of this Exh.ibit "A".
R COMPLETION OF SERVICES
When CITY determines that CONSULTANT has completed all of the Services in accordance
With the terms of this Agreement, CITY shall give CONSULTANT written Notice of Final
Acceptance, !!nd CONSULTANT shall not incur any further costs hereunder. CONSULTANT
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 s.o requested, CITY sha11 make this
determination within two (2) weeks of~uch request, or if CITY determines that CONSULTANT
has not completed all of such Services as required by this Agreement, CITY shall so 'inform
CONSULT ANT within this two (2) week period.
III. PROGRESS SCHEDULE
The .schedule fur performance and completion of the Services will be as set forth in the attached
Exhibit "C".
IV. PAYMENT OF FEES AND DIRECT EXPENSES
Payments shall be made to CONSULTANT as provided for in Article 4 of this Agreement
-I·
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
Direct expenses are charges and fees not included in Exhibit "B''. CITY shall be obligated to
pay only for those direct expenses whi9h have been previously approved in writing by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall obtain written approval from CITY prior to incurring or billing ofdirect
expenses ..
Copies of pertinent financial records, including invoices, will be included with the submission of
billing(s) for all direct expenses.
V. OTHER PROVISIONS
A.. STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
CONSULT ANT Tepresents and warrants that it has the qualificationS, skills ~nd lkenses
necess!lry to perfonn the Services, and its dutie.s and obligations, expressed and· ilnplied,
contained 4ereil\, and CITY expressly relies upon CONSULT ANT'S representatio115 a11<1
warranties regarding its skills, qualifications and licenses. CONSULT ANT 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.
A11Y plo\\ns., designs; specificati01;1s, estin:)ates, calculations, r\)ports and ot)ler.<locljl)l~nts fi!rt)isl\ed
under this Agreement shall be of a quality acceptable· to CITY. The minimum criteria for
acceptance sliail be .a product of neat appearance, well-organized, technically and grammatically
eortebt, checked and· having the maker and checker identified. The minimum standard of
appearanc~, organization and content of the drawings shall be that used by CITY for similar
p1JfPOses.
B. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSULTANT.
CONSULT ANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy,. and the
coordination of the Services furnished by it under this Agreement. CONSULtANT shall not be
responsible for the accuracy <;>f 81;ly 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 CONSULTANT shall be and remain liable to CITY in
accordance with applicable law for all damages to CITY ci!I!Sed by CONSULT ANT'S negligent
performance of any of the services furnished imderthis Agreement. ·
C. RJGHT OF CITY TO INSPECT RECORDS OF CONSULT ANT
CITY, through its authorized employees, represent~tives or agents, sha.ll hjtve th.e dght, at .anY
and aH reasonable times, to audit the books and records (including, but not limited to, invoices,
vouchers, canceled checks, time cards,.etc.) of CONSULTANT for the purpose ofverlfying any
and all ch;rrges made by CONSULTANT in connection with this Agreement. CONSULT ANt
shall m.ail;ltain for a minin:)qm period of three (3) years (from the date of final payn\ent to
CONSULTANT), or for ~y longer period require<;! l?y law; Sl!ftident books and records in
accordance :with stan<jard California accounting practiges to establish the correctness of ail
charges submitted to CITY by CONSULTANT, all of which shall be tnade ava.ilable to CITY at
the CITY's offices within five (5) business days afterCITY'srequest.
-2-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
· D. CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIAL
All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, manufacturing procedures, data (iricluding, but not
limited to, computer data and source code), drawings; descriptions, documents, discussions or
other infotlnation developed or received by or for CONSULT ANT and all other written and oral
iriformation developed or received by or for CONSULT ANT and all other written and oral
information submitted to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement
shall be held confidential by CONSULTANT and shall not, without the prior written consent of
CITY, be used for any purposes other than the performance of the Services, nor be disclosed to
an entity not connected with the performance of fhe such Services. l'{othing furnished to
cONSULTANT which is othern>lse known to CONSULTANT or is or becomes generally
known to the related industry (other than that which becoJ;Qes generally known as the result of
CONSULTANT'S disclosure thereof) shall be deemed confidential. CONSULTANT shall not
us.e CitY'S name or insignia, or distnbute publicity pertaining to the .services rendered under
this Agreement in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper or other medium without the express
written consei;lt of CITY.
E. NO PLEDGING OF CITY'S CREDIT.
Under no circumstances shall CONSuLT ANT have the authority or power to pledge the credit
of CITY or incur any obligation in the name of CITY.
E OWNERSHIP OF MATERIAL.
All material inCluding, but not limited to, computer information, data and source code, sketches,
tracings, drawings, pians, 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 CONSULT ANT may
retain and use copies thereof subject to Section V.D of this Exh_ibit "A".
CITY shall not be limited in any way in its use of said material at any .lime for any work,
whether or not associated with the City project 'for which the Services are performed. However,
CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for, and City shall iridemnify CONSULTANt from,
damages resulting from the use of said material for work other than PROJECT, itic!Uc!mi!, 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 ofany ihird
party ot parties, and no third party or parties shall have any claim or right of action hereunder for
any cause whatsoever.
4835-226l·0361v1
LAC\04106083 -3-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
H. NOTICES.
Notices are to be sent as follows:
L
D
CITY:
CONSULTANT:
Maria Angeles
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Hatem Ahmed
CSG Consultants . .Inc.
550 Pilp.Dri~e
Foster City. CA 94404
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 chec:ked, this· Agreement ·does not Involve
federal funding and the requirements of this Section V.i. do not apply.
1. DBE Program
CONSULTANT shall comply with the requirements of Title 49, P@rt 26, Code of J.<e<)eraJ
Regulations ( 49 CPR 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 CONSULT ANT warrants that he/she has not employed o~ retained any company or person,
other than a llona fide employee working for the CONSULT ANT, to solicit -or secure this
Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a
llona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, .brokerage fee, · gift or any other
consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the aw~d ot 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.
4835·2267;036\v\
LAC\04706063 -4-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
48.35-226J.036M
lAG\04J06083
EXHffiiT "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
-I-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
CSG Scope of Services
The exact scope of work will be determined based on the request of the City and the type of project.
New Development Entitlements
• Review tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, architectural review, and other entitlement
applications. Coordinate review with other City staff and/or outside agencies as needed.
• Attend follow-up meetings with Planning staff, the applicant, or others as needed to resolve issues
regarding the proposal. Review subsequent submittals of the proposal.
• Prepare conditions of approval for project and submit to Planning.
Plan Review and Map Review
• Review final maps, improvement and landscape plans. Review includes evaluation of required
records, studies, grading and improvement plan, and additional materials submitted by the design
professional. Confirm that plans conform to City standard design criteria, conditions of approval, and
infrastructure or other master plans.
• Each plan review will be accompanied with a letter summarizing the red-line comments addressed to
the applicant's engineer or landscape architect, with a copy to City staff and the applicant. A
complete red-lined set of drawings and any reports will be returned to the design professionals for
use in their corrections. At the applicant's discretion, the comment summary letter and red-lined
plan sheets can be scanned and submitted electronically to the design consultant to expedite the
review process.
• The consultant will meet with the applicant/representative and City staff to review comments or to
delineate the standards which are not being met, in order to facilitate timely completion of the
review and meeting the maximum goal of two plan checks. CSG Consultants will accept and review
subsequent submittals electronically, when feasible, in order to expedite the review process.
• , The project manager will adjust and/ or develop the plan check list to meet the criteria as required.
• Soils reports will be evaluated and confirmation of recommendations will be included on the plans.
Boundary conditions will be evaluated to maintain continuity with surrounding properties and
maintain existing drainage patterns.
• Construction erosion control and post-construction water quality control will be evaluated for
compliance with the storm water quality management permit In effect for the City.
• Assist the City with development of conditions of approval, development agreements, and other
requirements associated with development appfications. Assist City in negotiating with developers
regarding terms of agreements or conditions (Addttional tasks associated with the entitlement
process are described above).
• Confirm that the developer has obtained necessary permits or approvals from other public agencies
as needed, and that plans conform to the City's NPDES Municipal Regional Permit requirements for
storm water treatment and retention.
• Review and recommend approval of engineering bond estimates and subdivision guarantees. Assist
the staff in preparing subdivision improvement agreements, other agreements (including
stormwater treatment measure and landscape maintenance agreements), and staff reports.
• Meet with developers, consultants, or other agencies on behalf of staff, as requested.
Onsite Services
• Provide on site land development review services as requested by the City.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
Street Vacations
• Assist in research and document preparation (e.g., plats, maps, legal descriptions, and findings) by a
licensed surveyor to support summary and regular street vacations and Oty property disposition according
to the City Municipal Code, Subdivision Map Act, and California Streets and Highways Code.
Staffing
• All plan reviews will be conducted by a State of Cali.fornia licensed civil engineer or under the
supervision of a licensed civil engineer.
• Each plan review Is assigned to a design plan reviewer with oversight of the project manager. The
assigned design plan reviewer will be committed to the project and will furnish all subsequent
reviews for the project. It Is the goal of CSG Consultants to provide, where practical, a cradle-to-
grave approach for project review, where a review team is assigned to the project from entitlement
through plan review and construction to closeout and acceptance.
• Provide specialized qualified licensed engineers to assist in any structural, soil and geotechnical
reviews, for any of the assigned projects.
• Map checking will be overseen by professional engineers licensed to practice land surveying In the
State of California or by licensed professional land surveyors.
• Consultants' plan review and Inspection staff will be available for applicant Inquiries or conferences
during n.ormal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 8:00AM through 5:00PM. Web
conferences, fax, and conference calls are optional forms of communications between Consultant
and City staff.
Plan Check Time lines
• Consultant shall achieve quality plan review while maintaining consistently superior turnaround
times. Consultant shall perform plan review within the following time lines, stated In working days,
upon receipt of complete application package: fifteen (15) days for initial plan checks and ten (10)
days for re-checks/back checks. CSG Consultants can provide electronic review of plan revisions
submitted in response to prior comments, In order to expedite the review process.
• It is understood that more complex projects may require additional time. It Is the responsibility of
Consultant to immediately Inform the City that the plan review may vary from the proposed time
lines. ·
Accelerated Plan Review
• If required by the City, Consultant has the ability to perform plan review services within an
accelerated time frame, negotiated on behalf of the applicant, the CltVs appointed contact, and
Consultant. In most cases, Consultant will complete initial plan review in fewer than ten working
days (five working days for re-checks). However, it Is understood that some plans may require
additional time. In those instances, Consultant shall notify and receive approval by the City of the
expected processing time prior to performing the plan review.
Online Plan Check Status
• Consultant shall make available online services to enable City and authorized applicants to determine
the status of plan checks. There is no additional cost for this service.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
4&35-2267-D361v1
I:AC\04706083
EXHJaiT "C"
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
-I-
-----"\\-
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
CSG's Milestone Schedule
Development of hard-and-fast schedules for completion of development review and plan review work is
difficult as timing and scope of projects is not always known. Examples of time frames for completing certain
tasks are provided below.
Complete Improvement Plan or Map
" Check)
Prepare fee estimate, review bond
pre:pa1repermit
\;·
:Fifteen (15) working days of notice of submittal by City
. ]~repare~~h~~~~~ wee.kb~reqllekbv'Pt~~~~lig;~:>, wtttiin reasonable '-·L ,.<. :C-.,,:;,t:: •. -. •• _ ... -.,. ·.>-.-'·"·· > .,.·; •• ·,,_. __ ·.-_.,_-.-.·1,1 ~-~----;._;.., --c,;;fc,: .. ;·,-·., .;c;! :···~·"'.· -_.,.-. ·.·--·· ·;'' • :,shorter time frame if needed to mee.t heanng date . ., .
• ·_._,,-; .. ,_-,"-•• ,,_,--,','_·-_,_ .. _ 'k·_· _.., _ .. _;_ ,-.. "~"-··:'-.' ··"""'"··:-'~ .<·. ,.-,_ . ,' ~----·-·-· " - '
. Ten (10) working days of notice of submittal by City
:Ten (10) working days of request
Re~·i~\ifiecjue•St .1<)(,ight'<i!',W;iy .va,t;ltion fT ~nl;pl wC>r~ ng da\'s of riOtice ofsub,.;,ittal by City'
':Ten (10) working days of notice of submittal C'lty
scope,
Turnaround times include pickup, OA/QC, and delivery to City.
CSG will attempt to reduce the need for formal resubmittals to the City by reviewing electronic submittals of
revisions provided directly to CSG. Turnaround times would vary based on the scope of the review, but would
typically be returned within one to two working days.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
4ll35-2267-0361v1
LAC\04706083
EXHIDIT "D"
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
CSG's Payment Schedule
Services are billed on a time and materials basis according to our Standard Rates, shown below.
pt,m.<>•. Structural Engineer
Associate Engineer
I As:sis1:ant El)gineer
Design Supervisor
CAD Designer
Engineering Technician
!l:eiidemt Engineer
Assistant Resident Engineer j Office Engineer
Inspector
$180
$180
$165
$165
$145
$125
$115
$115
$105
$170
$130
$130
$115
$170
Rates reflect and include admlnisu·atlve costs and routine expenses such as local mileage, copying 1 fax, telephone. maH,
in-house printing} software, and computer usage, etc. Reproduction and sub consultants are billed at cost plus 15%.
Rates will remain effective thmugh June 30th, 2016.
A 3% increase of the hourly rates will be added for each fiscal year ofthe contract, starting July 1, 2016 for the duration of
the contract.
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
7.B.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: CSG Consultants - On Call Services Agreement (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services 2018)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF
GILROY AND CSG CONSULTANTS, INC.
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation ("CITY"), and CSG Consultants, Inc.
("CONSULTANT"), entered into that certain agreement entitled Agreement for Services, effective on
July 2, 2015, hereinafter referred to as "Original Agreement"; and
WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Council approved a budget amendment of $485,000 for CSG for
Engineering Plan Check Services on April 17, 20 17; and
WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have determined it is in their mutual interest to amend
certain terms ofthe Original Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The first paragraph of Article 1 (Term of Agreement) of the Original Agreement shall be
amended to read as follows: -,
"This Agreement will become effective on July 2, 2015, and will continue in effect through
May 1. 2019 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of _this
Agreement."
The second paragraph of Article 1 of the Original Agreement is unaffected and remains
enforceable.
2. Article 4, Section A (Consideration) of the Original Agreement shall be amended to read as
follows:
"In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay
CONSULT ANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit "D" ("Payment Schedule"). In no event
however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed $935,000."
3. This Amendment shall be effective on June 1, 2017.
4. Except as expressly modified herein, all of the provisions of the Original Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect. In the case of any inconsistencies between the Original Agreement and
this Amendment, the terms of this Amendment shall controL
5. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
Ill
Ill
Ill
4813-2991-0856v1
MBRANSON\04706083 -1-
7.B.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: CSG Consultants - 2015 Agreement - Amendment No. 1 pages 1-2 (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
dates set forth besides their signatures below.
By:
Gabri el Gonzalez
C ity Adm inistrator
Date: --¢,.,___=.:?6~4F-7r---
Approved as to Form
fx¥7
City Attorney
4813-2991.0856v1
MBRANSON \04706083
CSG CONSULTANTS , INC.
Presi dent
Date:
-2-
7.B.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: CSG Consultants - 2015 Agreement - Amendment No. 1 pages 1-2 (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for Engineering Services
7.B.cPacket Pg. 53Attachment: 2018-02-27 Second Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG Signed Only (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for
7.B.cPacket Pg. 54Attachment: 2018-02-27 Second Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG Signed Only (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for
7.B.dPacket Pg. 55Attachment: 2018-04-16 Third Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG Signed Only (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for
7.B.dPacket Pg. 56Attachment: 2018-04-16 Third Amendment for On-Call Civil Engineering Services - CSG Signed Only (1619 : Third Contract Amendment for
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Community Development Block Grant and Housing Trust Fund
Public Services Funding Renewal Recommendations for FY 2018-
19
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Jim Carney
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of funding renewal of the FY 2018-2019 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds and Housing Trust Fund funds to twelve nonprofit agencies.
POLICY ISSUE:
The City Council is asked to consider awarding the second year of funding of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
allocations to twelve local non-profit organizations that provide low income public
services and housing rehabilitation activities.
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City to
identify low income needs and goals for the use of CDBG funds in segments of five
years. The Council adopted in May, 2015 the five year (2015 -2020) Consolidated Plan
that spans the fiscal years 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. The CDBG program fiscal year is
July 1st to June 30th annually. The Consolidated Plan identified the goals for use of
8.A
Packet Pg. 57
CDBG funds to address low income needs in the City of Gilroy. With the adopted
Consolidated Plan, HUD requires the City to develo p and adopt Annual Action Plans
(AAP) to program the use of CDBG funds for each fiscal year of the 2015 -2020
Consolidated Plan. Gilroy also elects to include the use of its local Housing Trust Fund
dollars in its AAP. Prior to the award of said funds, th e Council reviews and determines
priorities for the public services and improvement projects portion of the CDBG and HTF
budgets.
Included in the AAP is funding for twelve public services and rehabilitation activities that
meet the priorities set forth in the Consolidated Plan. These programs were initially
funded in FY 17-18 and included a second year funding option based on satisfactory
performance and continued funding from HUD. This arrangement was first established
when the City adopted a two-year budget process and continues to work well by
reducing staff hours involved in this process for the non-profit agencies and City staff.
Based on the Council’s direction, staff will prepare the next AAP with the second year
funding for the public service grants and housing rehabilitation programs. The draft FY
18-19 AAP will be scheduled for presentation to the City Council on May 7, 2018.
Contingency Provisions for Gilroy CDBG Program Funding:
As of the current date, the FY 2019 federal budget has been passed by Congress and
signed by the President, including increased CDBG funding allocations for FY 18 -19.
HUD normally requires submission of the AAP by May 15th of each year. However, it
may be a month, or two, before HUD determines the new CDBG allocations for FY 18-
19. The CDBG grant for Gilroy in FY 17-18 was $460,354, and that amount is expected
to be slightly increased for FY 18-19. Since HUD has not yet calculated and informed
local jurisdictions of their CDBG grant amounts, HUD (Notice CDP-18-1) has suggested
contingency provisions be made for the CDBG funding for FY 18-19.
Our HUD San Francisco representative has verified that Gilroy should proceed with its
schedule for the citizen participation and Council meetings, as noted herein, in
preparation of the AAP. The City should be ready to move quickly to revise the AAP
document and forward it to HUD when the City is notified of the actual FY 18 –19 CDBG
allocation amount.
Based on the adopted 2019 federal budget, it is expected that HUD’s FY 18-19
allocation to Gilroy will be more than the FY 17-18 award. If so, the public service and
administration caps will be recalculated. The amount available for Program
Administration will be as follows:
Allocation + Previous Year’s Program Income X 20%
The amount allocated to Public Services will be as follows:
Allocation + Estimated Program Income X 15%
8.A
Packet Pg. 58
The amount of increase to the Public Service agencies will be proportionally based
upon the percentage of CDBG funding allocated for FY 18-19. For example, if the
funding for an affected Agency currently makes up 20% of the funds for Public Services,
their amended funding would be 20% of the amended amount of funds allocated to
Public Services.
Pursuant to HUD’s instructions, the AAP inclusive of recommended program funding
levels can be adopted by the City Council, with the provision that upon HUD’s notice to
the City of the FY 18-19 CDBG award, adjustments to the FY 18-19 AAP funding levels
can be made without an additional Council action. After the adjustments are made,
then the final FY 18-19 AAP can be submitted to HUD for final approval.
DISCUSSION:
On February 2, 2015 and March 16, 2015 the City Council approved a series of funding
priorities for inclusion in the five-year Consolidated Plan. On April 4, 2016, the City
Council approved the FY 17-18 AAP for year one of the two-year funding cycle.
Included in those plans were the priorities for various public services and rehabilitation
activities that would receive funding from CDBG and HTF revenues. Those priorities
were as follows:
Basic Needs: Includes food, shelter, clothing, transportation and job readiness.
services for these needs that would benefit the most vulnerable populations,
including persons experiencing homelessness, seniors, disabled persons , and
victims of domestic violence.
Supportive Services: Includes case management, housing location assistance
and mental health services. This also includes the Homeless Management
Information System which is a countywide database used to track support ive
services for homeless persons that currently receive or have received such
services in the past.
Youth Services: Includes services directed toward at -risk youth that addresses
crime prevention, gang intervention, recreational activities and youth
empowerment.
Economic Development: CDBG exempts public services from the public services
15% cap if the services are provided in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
Area (NRSA) by a HUD recognized Community Based Development
8.A
Packet Pg. 59
Organization (CBDO). A CBDO is a non-profit agency whose mission is to
provide services in a defined strategy area and with a board of directors
consisting primarily of low income residents or owners of businesses located in
the strategy area. A CBDO can provide a range of services with the NRSA to
include services to promote economic development by providing employment
training services.
Housing Services: Includes only fair housing, tenant and landlord counseling and
homebuyer education.
The Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (CNRC) held their meeting
on March 21, 2018 to discuss funding renewals for twelve non-profit agencies. Staff
provided the committee members with detailed information for each agency including
the program description, budget, proposed activitie s and outcomes, as well as agency
performance for the first and second quarters of FY 17 -18. The CNRC review included
performance reports and funding renewal narratives of those CDBG and HTF funded
non-profit agencies for the first year of the two year cycle. Based upon that information
and the expected availability of FY 18-19 funding, the CNRC recommended funding
renewals for all twelve of the existing CDBG and HTF funded agencies.
However, the CNRC modified their recommended CDBG funding amount for the Gilroy
Demonstration Garden from $14,500 in FY 17 -18 to $10,000 for FY 18-19 due to that
program’s slow start up this year. The CNRC increased HTF funds for Project
Sentinel’s Landlord – Tenant Dispute Resolution program from $20,000 in FY 17-18 to
$26,000 for FY 18-19 and increased the CDBG funds for the Compassion Center Day
program from $13,500 in FY 17-18 to $18,000 in FY 18-19. Attached is a table that
identifies the recommended FY 18-19 funding for those twelve funded agencies.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council could approve CDBG and HTF funding allocations
recommended by the CNRC to twelve local non -profit organizations that provide
low income public services and a housing rehabilitation program. This action
would allow needed low income services and programs commencing July 1,
2018, assuming HUD announces the Gilroy CDBG grant amount prior to that
date. Staff recommends this action.
2. The City Council could not award all, or part, of the second year of funding of
CDBG and HTF allocations recommended by the CNRC to twelve local non-profit
organizations that provide low income public services and the rehabilitation
program to the Gilroy community. This action would deny those public services
being provided to low and very low-income Gilroy residents in a timely manner. It
could also result in late submittal of the FY 18-19 AAP to HUD and delay
8.A
Packet Pg. 60
approval of the start of funding for FY 18-19. Staff does not recommend this
action.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City as these funds are allocated by the Federal
Government for specific CDBG purposes. Based on the approved 2019 federal budget,
it is expected there will be a slight increase in CDBG funds for FY 18-19.
Attachments:
1. Attachment 1 CNRC Funding Renewal Recommendations FY 18-19
8.A
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment 1
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) & Housing Trust Fund (HTF) FY 2018-2019 Funding Renewal Recommendations
RATING CHART SUMMARY
Agency Project Rating Ranking FY-
2016-17
City
Funding
Amount
Requested
for
FY 17-18 &
FY 18-19
CNRC
Recommended
Funding Amount
for FY 17-18
& FY 18-19
Council
Award
FY 17-18
Action
Plan
Funding
Renewal
Recommended
for FY 18-19
Funding
Type
PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS
Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica Shelter for
Battered Women and Their
Children
147 1 $15,000 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 $12,500 HTF
St. Joseph's Family
Center
Homeless Prevention and
Safety Net Services
141 2 $15,000 $100,000 $34,465 $34,465 $34,465 HTF
Silicon Valley
Independent Living
Center
Housing and Emergency
Services for Persons with
Disabilities
139 3 $18,070 $21,070 $21,070 $21,070 $21,070
HTF
St. Joseph's Family
Center
Gilroy Street Team 138 4 $30,000 $35,000 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 HTF
Live Oak Adult Day
Services
Adult Day Care Gilroy 130 5 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 CDBG
Project Sentinel Landlord-Tenant Counseling
and Dispute Resolution
Services
132 6 $ 26,000 $26,000 $20,000 $20,000 $26,000
increased $6,000
HTF
Gilroy Compassion
Center
Gilroy Compassion Center Day
Center
128 7 $36,930 $104,160 $20,965 $20,965 $20,965 HTF
$17,434 $13,500 $13,500 $18,000
increased $4,500
CDBG
Project Sentinel Project Sentinel Fair Housing 124 8 $ 21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 $21,000 HTF
Gilroy Demonstration
Garden
Gilroy Demonstration Garden 98 9 $
-
$28,310 $18,000 $14,500
amended
$10,000
decreased $4,500
CDBG
City of Gilroy
Recreation
Department
Gilroy Youth Center Allocated by
City Council
N/A $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 CDBG
City of Gilroy
Recreation
Department
Free Swim Lessons Allocated by
City Council
N/A $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 CDBG
REHABILITATION GRANT
Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley
Rebuilding Home Repair,
Rehabilitation and Accessibility
Modification
139 1 $
-
$150,000 $150,000 $120,000
amended
$120,000 CDBG
Total: $229,434 $508,040 $353,500 $360,000 $366,000
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Attachment 1 CNRC Funding Renewal Recommendations FY 18-19 (1610 : Community
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Public Hearing to Establish a List of Properties Subject to the Weed
Abatement Program and Adoption of a Resolution Ordering the Fire
Chief to Abate the Nuisance Arising Out of Weeds Growing and
Refuse Accumulating Upon Property in the City of Gilroy Pursuant
to Section 12.51 of the Gilroy Code
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Rob Allen
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy ordering the Fire Chief
to abate the nuisance arising out of weeds growing and refuse accumulating upon
property in the City of Gilroy, pursuant to Section 12.51 of the Gilroy City Code.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 5, 2018 Weed Abatement Resolution 2018-02 was adopted declaring
weeds and refuse as a Public Nuisance. This annual process is to comply with both the
City Code and State Health and Safety Code which require that prior to authorizing the
abatement of a lot, the City hold a public hearing of t he subject properties. This
resolution includes the list of lots that have a history of not being abated, and is the
commencement list for the County’s inspection and abatement program.
8.B
Packet Pg. 63
The commencement list also establishes that these properties are subject to certain fee
assessments and, if necessary, can be abated by the County in the event the property
owner does not complete abatement by the May 15th deadline. The abatement fees
would then be applied as a property tax assessment to the following year ’s property
taxes.
BACKGROUND
Annually, the weed and refuse abatement program provides a public hearing to
establish the list of properties subject to the abatement program. The abatement
program continues to be implemented under an agreement with the Santa Clara County
Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Vegetation Management Program.
All subject property owners are sent the public hearing notice, as well as the abatement
instructions to follow and the fee costs. This notice went out the week following the
Weed Declaration Resolution adoption by Council on February 5, 2018. A second notice
will go out 30 days prior to the May 15th deadline. If the property owner fails to abate the
lot by May 15, 2018, the owner of the lot will be assessed fees for the failed inspection,
in addition to the initial inspection fee, and a notice will be sent to the owner requiring
the abatement to be completed within two weeks.
Lots in the Wildland Urban Interface Hazardous Fire Areas, primarily hillside, will not
receive a 2 week additional grace period, as is offered to other lots within the City. If the
lot is still not abated by the May 15th deadline the County will complete a work order to
have the lot abated by their contractor. The County will then assess an abatement
administrative fee, in addition to the cost of the abatement. The abatement
administrative fee and cost of abatement will be in addition to the inspection fee and the
failed inspection fee.
A public hearing (tax lien hearing) will be held on August 6, 20 18 to add the fees as a
tax assessment for the following year’s property taxes. Prior to the City Council tax lien
assessment hearing, property owners with an assessment will be notified. They can
request an administrative meeting/review with the County’s Program Manager and the
City’s Fire Marshal, should they not agree with the assessment. The administrative
meeting/review can be held in person, by phone, or email. The purpose is to eliminate
assessments that were incorrectly made through an error or inco rrectly applied to the
wrong property owner.
8.B
Packet Pg. 64
A listing of the properties and owners that have been noticed is attached and on file with
the City Clerk. It is also posted at the City’s Fire Stations. Lots whose weeds and/or
rubbish are abated by the May 15th deadline and are maintained in an abated condition
through the fire season will only be assessed the $90 inspection fee.
ANALYSIS
This year’s commencement listing consists of 166 properties, listed by APN. The
County will inspect them shortly after the May 15th deadline. The County will keep
photos and documentation of their inspections and send notices to those property
owners that missed the deadline. Lots that need abatement will be abated by the
County. A report of lots abated and the associated fees to be assessed will be
presented at the tax lien assessment hearing on August 6, 2018.
The agreement with the County requires if a property had a failed inspection within the
past three years it shall remain on the commencement list. A property with no violations
during a three consecutive period will be removed from the commencement list.
However, the County does provide for some lots to be removed from the
commencement list if the property has been completely redeveloped and there is no
unmanaged weed hazard. It is also important to note that the commencement list was
reduced from 288 lots last year in 2017 down to 166 lots for this year, showing
substantial progress toward compliance. The list has been reduced this year due to
some of the lots that have been developed or have not proven to be a public nuisance
within the last three year period.
Any owner that objects to their property being on the commencement list can object as
part of this public hearing. Such lots can be removed from the commencement list if
there is adequate reason (i.e. the lot has been redeveloped and there is no weed risk).
Any objections will be addressed for conformance to the agreement and an adjustment
made. Otherwise the commencement list should be approved by the Council so the
program can proceed. Owners with concerns that cannot meet the deadline due to site
conditions can contact the County and/or City Fire Marshal’s office.
The County also provides an “app” for the public to notify them of weed complaints. Lots
that are reported or identified out of compliance with weed and refuse requirements that
are not on the commencement list will also be sent a notice to comply. Administrative
Citations can be issued, and lots can be added to the abatement program for the
following year. If an unlisted lot has unmitigated weeds and refuse, that lot can be
scheduled for a separate public hearing to allow the County to abate the lot this year
and assess fees for cost recovery.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
8.B
Packet Pg. 65
As long as the County recovers its expenses for the program using the fees assessed,
the County bears the entire cost of the program. If there is a shortfall in cost recovery,
the City would be requested to provide its proportionate share of the shortfall.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could choose not to approve the resolution to establish the commencement
list. This action is not recommended. The burden of both managing this program and
abating the properties would revert back to the City of Gilroy, requiring additional
resources to be needed and no funding available.
The Council can approve the resolution to establish the commencement list. This
action is recommended. The program has worked very well since 2013 with the
County of Santa Clara managing the weed and refuse abatement. The re has been good
results in performing the abatements and there has also been no cost for the City.
NEXT STEPS
Hold the Public Hearing on August 6, 2018 to assess the fees based the County’s
assessment report.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The County will mail notices and instructions on abatement to the listed Property
Owners.
Attachments:
1. Reso 2018 Commencement Weeds
2. Gilroy Commencement 2018
8.B
Packet Pg. 66
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY ORDERING THE FIRE CHIEF TO ABATE THE
NUISANCE ARISING OUT OF WEEDS GROWING AND
REFUSE ACCUMULATING UPON PROPERTY IN THE
CITY OF GILROY, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12.51 OF THE
GILROY CITY CODE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III of Chapter 12 of the Gilroy City Code, on February 5,
2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018-02 declaring that weeds growing and refuse
accumulating in the City of Gilroy constitute public nuisances; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Gilroy has caused notice of
the adoption of Resolution No. 2018-02 and notice of a public hearing on the proposed order to
abate said nuisances to be given to all of the affected property owners at their stated mailing
addresses on the latest tax assessor’s role, and has also caused notice to be given by posting and
publication in the manner and form provided in Sections 12.48, 12.49 and 12.53 of the Gilroy
City Code; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was duly held on April 16, 2018, pursuant to said
resolution in the time and manner required by law, and any objections raised to the proposed
destruction or removal of said weeds and refuse were duly considered by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Chief of the Fire Department is hereby ordered to abate the nuisances on
the properties described in Attachment “A” hereto, or cause the same to be abated, by having
refuse removed and weeds destroyed and/or removed by cutting, discing, chemical spraying or
any other method as may be determined by the Chief of the Fire Department or his authorized
Contractor. Such abatement shall be performed before May 15, 2018.
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Reso 2018 Commencement Weeds (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
2. That any property owner shall have the right to destroy and/or remove weeds
growing and refuse accumulating on his property or have the same destroyed or removed at his
expense prior to the arrival of the Chief of the Fire Department or his authorized representatives
or contractors to remove them. Any property found with weeds after May 15, 2018 shall be
subject to the costs of further inspection and /or abatement by the City or the County and its
authorized contractor. Sites found after such date that constitute a fire hazard shall also be
subject to administrative citation.
3. That the Chief of the Fire Department or his authorized contractors shall keep an
account of the costs of destroying and/or removing said weeds and refuse and embody such
account in a report and assessment list to be presented to the City Council and filed with the City
Clerk. Such report shall refer to and sufficiently describe each separate lot or parcel of land and,
for each, shall state the costs of destroying or removing weeds, removing refuse, or both, and the
costs which are proposed to be assessed against the lot or parcel.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this16th day of April 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
8.B.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Reso 2018 Commencement Weeds (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMGOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROY2005083408350834198358790202002295216523r023350817287558745195092462311HECKERPASSHECKER PASSNO SITUSWINTERWINTERWINTERMONTEREYNO SITUSJANROCKROSEHOLLYHOCKCORALBELLPERIWINKLEWILDROSEWILDROSENO SITUSSTINFLOWERFOXGLOVEWILD IRISWILD IzuSLAVENDERDOVEHOYAHY 783-03-002HY 783-03-003783-03-070cr 783-03-073cr 783-03-074cr 783-03-081RD 783-19-010783-21-465DR 783-36-035cr 78345-026LN 783-45-044cr 783-46-A2BDR 783-46-030cr 783-46-035cr 783-46-037783-46-079cL 783-47-003cr 783-52-019DR 783,52-03'1DR 783-52-032wY 783-52-035cr 783-57-004LN 783-64-021575 SOUTHSIDE DR575 SOUTHSIDE DR575 SOUTHSIDE DR2O2O ROCKROSE CT830 SYDNEY CT101 FIRST ST10756 GREEN VALLEY DR0 Po Box 2178790 JAN DR2O2O ROCKROSE CT10440 DEANZABL2295 CORAL BELL CT2165 PEzuWINKLE DR431 CASSELINO DR2335 WILDROSE CTI88I CAMPBELLAV24I68 BIG BASIN WY4125 HECKER PASS RD8755 WILD IRIS DR783 MANTELLI DR970 WOOD DUCKAV9246 DOVE CT85 HAYESAVGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYLOSALTOSGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYCUPERTTNOGILROYGILROYSAN JOSEGILROYSAN JOSESARATOGAGILROYGILROYGILROYSANTACLARAGILROYSAN JOSESLTNSET HILLS DEVELOPMENT LLCSLINSET HILLS DEVELOPMENT LLCSLTNSET HILLS DEVELOPMENT LLCMARQUES,ALBERTEDWARDS, LORETTACLAYTON JOHNSON ENTERPRISESMARTIN LIMITED PARTHEE, NICOLE KCOX, LORIMARQUES, LARRY TRUSTEEENTERPRISE REI 8 LLCKHAN, SHAHIDNVILLA, JOSESHAN, JU AND CAI, XUANSONGKHUONG, SOVAWATSON, MARCUS A AND CAMERONENTERPRISE REI 8 LLCSAULAN, KIMCHAU THI TRUSTEEZARGARIAN HELGAARVIZU, JOSE CARMENVERMA,ASHISH TRUSTEE & ETALAYALA, DANIEL JAND ELIZABETH LREYES, OSCARJAND SHIRLEYANN GCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA9s020950209s02095020-793195020-000094022950209502195020-74419s020-7931950149s020-19039s020-792995 136-000095020-000095125-5611950709502095020-00009s020-7515950519s020-000095123-214t23 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage I8.B.bPacket Pg. 69Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTGITY OF GILROY2354912191019100896121102140I 87118701 8601830182018109175914591109045905090359030902590028962BANYANGTINNERAGLINNERAGLINNERAAZARAHOLLYHOCKHOLLYHOCKCAROBCAROBCAROBCAROBCAROBCAROBTEATREETEATREETEATREETEATREETEATREETEATREETEATREEMIMOSAMIMOSATEATREEsr 783-65-022LN 783-65-024LN 783-65-025LN 783-65-026sr 783-66-017cr 783-70-012LN 783-70-015cr 783-72-010cr 783-72-412cr 783-72-013cr 783-72-416cr 783-72-A17cr 783-72-018wY 783-72-019wY 783-72-024wY 783-72-022wY 783-72-A23wY 783-72-424wY 783-72-425wY 783-72-026cr 783-72-027cr 783-72-429wY 783-72-030KARBALEINEMATMOEINI,VU, FRANK H TRUSTEEJIANG, XUEPING AND ZHANG,OCHOA, JOSE LUIS TRUSTEESANCHEZ, LUIS VAND ROUHIZADEH,VANNI, MICHAELAAND JULIENNE LLEMIEUX, NORMAN TANDPAPPAS, DEAN AND HEATHEROPINSKI, EUGENE I2OI4AB PROPERTY LLCARAKELIAN,ELIZAZHANG, SHELING AND ZHAN, YINGOP DEVELOPMENT INCMILTON, GREGORYEMATOS, ROGERIO DAND ROBYN LDONOVAN, DARRYL AND MENACHAKAMIAN, SHARAREH H ANDAB PROPERTY LLCLE, LIEM QUANGDO,NGOCBICHTHI ETALKOLLAREDDX USHARANI ETALSOSA, VICTORJ TRUSTEE & ETALTHIEN, TRACY2121 CRUDEN BAYWYI45O FRY RD6761 CROSBYCT9IOO GLINNERALN8961 AZARA ST2IlOHOLLYHOCK CT4793 CORRALES DR7377 THAYER CT14335 SPYGLASS CL2326 FLINT AV760 CAMPBELLAVI89 BANGORAVI45 zuGGS AVII5 LOSALTOS DR29 PORTERLN9110 TEATREE WYI94O PEAR DR2326 FLTNT AV3IOO MELCHESTERDR979 STORYP.D#70247948 MCCLELLAN RD9OO2 MIMOSA CT38 PARK FLETCHER PLGILROYHOUSTONSAN JOSEGILROYGILROYGILROYSAN JOSEGILROYCHOV/CHILLASAN JOSECAMPBELLSAN JOSEMERCEDHOLLISTERSAN JOSEGILROYMORGAN HILLSAN JOSESAN JOSESAN JOSECUPERTINOGILROYSAN JOSECATXCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA95020-0000770849s129-281895020-000095020-000095020-000095136-26139s020-s4369361095 1489s008-233395123-3602953409s02395127-2s4795020-000095037-00009s 14895132-17449s122950149502095136-240346 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage 28.B.bPacket Pg. 70Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF G¡LROY898 I8971895 I89s00898322042203222322242243224492109230925092r12273228322912281228222812262V/YWYWYCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTCTTEATREETEATREETEATREEMIMOSAMIMOSAMIMOSABANYANBANYANBANYANBANYANBANYANBANYANMAHOGANYMAHOGANYMAHOGANYMAHOGANYBANYANBANYANBANYANBANYANGLTNNERAGL]NNERACOLUMBINE783-72-431783-72-033783-72-034783-72-435783-72-036783-72-437783-72-439783-72-A4A783-72-441783-72-442783-72-043783-72-444783-72-445783-72-446783-72-047783-72-449783-72-051783-72-052783-72-453783-72-054783-72-055783-72-056783-72-057SAN JOSEGILROYGILROYSAN JOSESAN JOSESAN JOSEMORGAN HILLSTINNYVALESAN JOSECAMPBELLSALINASCAMPBELLSAN JOSEGILROYFREMONTSAN JOSESAN JOSEFREMONTGILROYSAN JOSESANTACLARAGILROYGILROY95 I 1 6-000095020-000095020-305495lll9s136-206795132-174495037-00009408995132-174495008939069500895121-25559s020-00009453995135-160495132-174494s3995020-000095 120-000095050-47499502095020-0000NRIASSOCIATES LLCLIU, HONGXUANBALAGANI, VENKATA AND SLTNITHAVU HUY Q TRUSTEE & ET ALSR BUILDING BLOCKS LLCLE, LIEM QUANGCHAKAMIAN, SANJAR ANDROBLES, RONALD EAND MARIARTRAN, LOANNAKANO, NANCYN ETALWANG, LEO AND DIAN HKATTAN, SHALOMNGUYEN, PHU AND DOAN, LILYQUILICI, TODD ANDYVONNEPADMANABHAN, SLINDAR ANDNGUYEN, JAMES TRILE, LIEM QUANGVELUVOLU, VEERANDHAR ANDFANG, HU CHENGGEISSERT, WARREN AND GARCIA,DASILVA, PAULAJAND JOHN BWATTS, GARY RAND YLTNG-NINGHOLDER, JOHN CAND KzuSTI E2250 CEDARSIDE CT2165 HOLLYHOCK CTI94O KILLARNEY CT423VTAPRIMAVERA3915 JERABEK CT3IOO MELCHESTER DR1940 PEAR DR1225 VIENNADR#25I3IOO MELCHESTER DR1610 DELLAV1784 LENNOX V/Y1622CAMPBELLAV3339 VANGORN WY9230 MAHOGANY CT47836 MASTERS CT5674 SAN FELIPE RD31OO MELCHESTER DR3I8 BEADGRASS TR2I65HOLLYHOCK CT856 HILLPOINT CT1344 JEFFERSON ST228I GTINNERACT23OO CLUB DRCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA69 records of 166Santa Clara County \ileed Abatement ProgramPage 38.B.bPacket Pg. 71Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROY2241220221621611I 5911681904591309160766850530169143102652552953053151 35530517llCOLUMBINECOLUMBINECOLUMBINELONGMEADOLONGMEADOLONGMEADOKERNRONANKERNLAALONDRACHURCHWELBURNWELBURNELCERzuTOCHURCHGURzuESGURzuESGURzuESGURzuESGURzuESlSTCOHANSEYMONTEREYcr 783-72-064cr 783-72-061cr 783-72-063cT 783-75-010cr 783-75-011cr 783-75-081AV 790-04-080AVE79A-17-002AVE790-17-003wY 790-24-006sr 790-28-404AV 790-28-005AV 790-30-001wY 790-34-018sr 790-35-008DR 790-35-040DR 790-35-041DR 790-35-042DR 790-35-043DR 790-35-044sr 790-39-030AV 79û-65-092RD 799-03-0550 Po Box 3309OI CALLE SERRA1243BLUE PARROT CT1611 LONGMEADOW CT1591 LONGMEADOW CT168I LONGMEADOV/ CT475 WILLOW SPRING RD1450 ELCAMINO REAL1450 EL CAMINO REAL5691 MAKATI CL8505 CHURCH ST301 V/ELBURNAV69I WELBURNAV43IELCERRITO WY1I FIRST ST18OO TAPO CANYON RDISOO TAPO CANYON RD18OO TAPO CANYON RDISOO TAPO CANYON RDISOO TAPO CANYON RD8635 EL MATADOR DR335I M STREET #1OO0SAN JUAN BAUTISTASAN DIMASGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYMORGAN HILLMENLO PARKMENLO PARKSAN JOSEGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYGILROYSIMIVALLEYSIMIVALLEYSIMI VALLEYSIMIVALLEYSIMI VALLEYGILROYMERCEDSAN JOSEKENNEDY JOHN D ETALKRUPA, STANISLAW TRUSTEE & ETWENDI ROBERT G ET ALWRYE, TIMOTHY M AND SALLY JBREWER, THOMAS EAND PATzuCIAADHALIWAL, JASDEEP S ETALWALTON, LEE A TRUSTEE & ET AL9130 KERNAVE LLC C/O GARLOCK &9I3O KERNAVE LLCDOLLAHON, CONSTANCE M TRUSTEEDE BELL, KENNETH E ETALANDERSON, KEITH RROBESON, HERMAN LAND CLARASHERNANDEZ, JOSE EAND MELBAAROMAN CAIHOLIC BISHOP OF SANDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTDEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUSTFORTINO, TERI AND YOUMANS,CENTRAL VALLEY COALITION77II MONTEREYRDLLCCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA950459177395020-000095020-000095020-00009s020-00009503794025940259s r23-000095020-426295020-443495020-43299s0209s02093063930639306393063930639s020-94189s34895 13892 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage 48.B.bPacket Pg. 72Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROYCITY/STATE76017273723372417 5607890149007581769878006151z',t400860s03709070APNMONTEREY RD 799.04-OOBEIGLEBERRY ST 799-09-028EIGLEBERRY ST 799-09-029EIGLEBERRY ST 799.09-034EIGLEBERRY ST 799.10-042CARMEL ST 799-16-008MTLLER AV 799-24-0240 799-24-425NO SrrUS 799-44-114SANTATERESA BL BOB-01.022lsr sr 808-01-023PONDEROSA DR B08-01-024MILLER AV 808.15-047BENASSI DR 808-26.052PONDEROSA DR 808-37-OOBTHOMAS RD 808-39-066HECKER PASS RD 810-20-006NO SrrUS 810-20-021MESA RD 810-30-032MURRAY AVE835-01-OO3LASANIMAS AV 835-02-016TOMKINS CT 835-02.023ELECTA CT 835-02.065BIOUX LLCAPOR PETE E & ROSARIO J TRUSTEEAPO& PETE EAND ROSARIO JGUTIERREZ, MARIO CAND JENNAMBAINS JAGJIT SINGHCAMPANELLA, MARYEANDTHOMA MELINDA W & PAUL F IIITHOMA, MELINDA W AND PAUL FELITE DEVELOPMENTS INCEAGLE GARDEN LLCEAGLE GARDEN LLCPIP(OZZOLL MONICA TRUSTEE & ETSPENCER, JOHN MAND PATzuCIAAMORzuSSEY, CHARLES PHARLAN, NOEL HCORP PRESI BISH CHURCH CHRISTHECKER PASS COMMERCIAL LLCHPAG LAND LLCWESTBROOK, BARBARA TRUSTEEMONTANOALATLANTIC CONCRETE INCMARTIN, INEZ M TRUSTEEMACKIN, DAVID ETAL5387 SILVER TRAIL CT14639 BADGER PASS RD14639 BADGER PASS RDT233ETGLEBERRY ST3435 HARBOR CT7241 CARMELST858I AMANDAWAY858l AMANDAWY144 WESTLAKEAV21701 STEVENS CRK BLV2I7OI STEVENS CRK BLV366 FIFTH ST1IO5 HACIENDADR7698 BENASSI DR0 P.o. Box 56750 E NORTH TEMPLE1999 BASCOMAV23 CORPORATE PL1065 CASTRO VALLEY RD1519I KARLAVE0PoBox1772I4OIO COLUMBET AV0 Po Box 320424SAN JOSEMORGAN HILLMORGAN HILLGILROYSAN JOSEGILROYGILROYGILROYV/ATSONVILLECUPERTINOCUPERTINOGILROYGILROYGILROYAPTOSSALT LAKE CITYCAMPBELLNEWPORIBEACHGILROYMONTE SERENOGILROYSAN MARTINLOS GATOS95 13895037-s90495037-59049s020-61r695127-431195020-613295020950209s07695014950t49502095020-53 l095020-47789500184150-3620950089262s9s020-9s959s030-22299s021-177295046-971095032cacaCACAcaCAcaCACACACACACACACAUTCACACAcaCACACA115 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage 58.B.bPacket Pg. 73Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGR,AMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROY40290806009096909001358841883 I8111RR8155784076501640762039s34131176107660CTAVAVAVAVAVDRDRLNSTLNSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTMADISONSAN YSIDROLASANIMASSAN YSIDROSAN YSIDROLASANIMASLASANIMASMURAOKAMURAOKASWANSTONMONTEREYSWANSTONWHEELERMONTEREYFORESTFORESTFORESTLEWISLEWISLEWISFORESTFORESTLEWIS835-03-059835-04-078835-04-082835-04-085835-04-086835-05-005835-05-007835-31-015835-31-016841-42-032841-02-446841-A2-454841 -02-055841-02-058841-03-056841-03-057841-03-059841-03-062841-03-063841-03-070841*03-071841-A3-113841 -04-029GILROYDANVILLESAN MARTINSAN MARTINSAN MARTINSAN JOSESAN JOSEMORGAN HILLMORGAN HILLMENLO PARKROSEVILLESAN JOSEGILROYLOSANGELESGILROYSAN JOSEGILROYGILROYSAN JOSEGILROYGILROYGILROYLOSANGELES95020-364094526950469s0469s04695127-220595128-1343950379s038940269s7419s126-170695020-00009002495020-000095 13095020-520295020-902795116-101195020-s22095020-520295020-000090025ZEPEDA,ALFREDO ANDGILROY SELF STORAGE PARTNERSGREEN, GEORGE EAND LYNDAMGREEN, GEORGE EAND LYNDAMGREEN, GEORGE EAND LYNDAMDO, HUONG MINH AND TRAN HUEGLANDER, CARMELLA R TRUSTEERAUSCHNOI MICHAEL TRUSTEE &C AND R DEVELOPMENTLLCDEL RIO, IGNACIO AND TRINIDADUNION PACIFIC CORPORATIONCHARRON, STEVEN A TRUSTEEDRL PROPERTIES LLCUNION BAY INV COARTIGA, JOSUE OTANG, ZHIHUI AND LIU, XIADARIAS-BARBA, TERESA ANDNGUYEN, HLING QAND LE, HONG TAADI CORPORATIONCHARLES, JOE RAND CARMENAOLIVERI SALVAIOREAJASO, MARTT{AM ETALGILROY LEV/IS STREET L P402 MADISON CTP.O.BOX 69913575 MAMMINI CT13575 MAMMINI CT13575 MAMMINI CT296 DELIA ST707 MONROE ST0 P.o. Box 6680 P.o. Box 6680 P.o.Box 230110031 FOOTHILLS BLVD1225 EMORY ST2545 MUIRFIELD WAY10476 LINDBROOK DR1420 BzuARBERRY LN4785 PARK WEST DR7620 FOREST STI1485 NEWAV13I5 ruLIAN ST3II LEWIS ST7610 FOREST ST7370 CHESTNUT ST1640 SEPULVEDABLCACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA138 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage 68.B.bPacket Pg. 74Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROY0749274720700710158706605690065038506970588505980597559200 841-06-462CHESTNUT ST 841.07-027CHESTNUT ST 841-07-443sourH 841-10-039RENZ LN 841-10-047ALEXANDER ST 841-13-021NO SITUS 841.13-022MONTEREY HY 841-14-011NO SrrUS 841-14-472MONTEREY RD 841-14-OBOCHESTNUT ST 841-16-117CAMERON BL 841.17.100CAMERON BL 841.17.147NO SrrUS 841-17-119NO SITUS 841-17-121NO SrrUS 841-53-066HOLLOWAY RD 84',1-70-026CAMTNO 841-7A-A49ROSSr LN 84',1,72-001LUCHESSA AV 841.73-005TRAVELPARK CIR 841-75-01'1TRAVEL PARK CL 841-75-412TRAVELPARK CL 841-75.013LTNION PACIFIC CORPORATIONSANCHEZ, ELOY G AND ANGELICA MFERNANDEZ, FABIAN ETALPACIFIC GASAND ELECTRIC CONIJJAR, KARAMJIT SINGH ANDLTNION PACIFIC CORPORATIONLTNION PACIFIC CORPORATIONGILROY MONTEREY LPLINION PACIFIC CORPORATIONGARLIC FARM TRUCK CENTERLLCCHRISTOPHER, DONALD C TRUSTEEMCCARTHY GILROY LLCMCCARTHY GILROY LLCLINITED NATURAL FOODS WEST INCTINITED NATURAL FOODS WEST INCMORENO, JOSE ETALLOUGHRAN, ALEXANDEROLIVE CAMINOARROYOLLCFORTLINADELTIEMPO LLCLONESTAR CALIFORNIAINCHOANG VTNCEAN TzuBLUE DIAMOND HOSPITALITY LLCALI,ASHRAF HAND YASMIN10031 FOOTHILLS BLVD7492 CHESTNUT ST7472 CHESTNUT STlll ALMADEN BLVD7755 GILROYAVIOO3I FOOTHILLS BLVDIOO31 FOOTHILLS BLVD525I ERICSON WYlOO3I FOOTHILLS BLVD5OOO 2ND ST305 BLOOMFIELDAV22ILOS GATOS-SARATOGA22I LOS GATOS.SARATOGAIOO OLIVER STIOO OLIVER ST75 LOSALTOS DR237 LAUMERAV4615 MAC ARIHUR CT199I0 SLINSET DRI5OI BELVEDERE RD5240 MONTEVERDE LN0 Po Box 120055OOO 2ND STROSEVILLEGILROYGILROYSAN JOSEFRESNOROSEVILLEROSEVILLEARCATAROSEVILLEBENECIAGILROYLOS GATOSLOS GATOSBOSTONBOSTONHOLLISTERSAN JOSENEWPORTBEACHLOS GATOSWEST PALM BEACHLINCOLNFRESNOBENICIACACACACACACACACACACACACACAMAMACACACACAFLCACACA9574795020-580695020-58069s I 1s-000593722957479s747955219574794s109502095030-000095030-0000021 l00211095023-5 1 609s127-2433926609s030-2933334069s64893172945 10161 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage 78.B.bPacket Pg. 75Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
Situs2018 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAMCOMMENCEMENT REPORTCITY OF GILROYCITY/STATEs97058470300380TRAVELPARKOBATAMAYOCKOBATAOBATAAPNcL 841-75-014wY 841-76-008RD 841-76-022cr 841-79-006cr 841-79-417ALI, ASHRAF HAND YASMINSALINAS, CARL TRUSTEEHEINZEN, ALAN B TRUSTEE & ETALSEALAKE CORPORATIONSALINAS, CARL L TRUSTEE5OOO 2ND ST0 P.o. Box 15692482HOWELLLN2O3IO ARGONAUT DR380 OBATACTBENICIAGILROYGILROYSARATOGAGILROYCACACACACA945109502t-156995020-91779s070-430495020-0000166 records of 166Santa Clara County Weed Abatement ProgramPage I8.B.bPacket Pg. 76Attachment: Gilroy Commencement 2018 (1608 : Weeds and refuse abatement)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Decision on Preferred Alignment for Mobility Partnership US
101/State Route 25 Interchange Improvements
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Select preferred alignment for the US101/SR 25 interchange improvements and provide
direction to City of Gilroy City Council representatives to the Mobility Partnership of the
preferred alignment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has presented the design for the
US101/SR25 Interchange Improvement Project. Staff is recommending that the initial
phase of interchange construction include either the extension of Santa Teresa
Boulevard to the interchange, or maintain direct access from southbound US101 to
Castro Valley Road. Staff is requesting the City Council review the proposed
alignments and provide guidance and recommendation that will be conveyed to the
VTA.
BACKGROUND
Mobility Partnership provides policy oversight and direction to staff of the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority and the Council of San Benito County Governments
10.A
Packet Pg. 77
regarding potential mobility improvements between US 101 and Interstate 5 in the
northern San Benito and Southern Santa Clara Counties. The six person Partnership,
consisting of three appointed members from VTA and three from San Benito County,
will advocate for the development of Transportation Improvements to improve mobility in
the area defined by the Partnership.
The VTA is sponsoring a project to reconstruct the US101/SR25 Interchange located
just south of the City of Gilroy. The project has been in the planning process since
October 2006. The project was cleared through California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in September 2013, and is currently going through its federal environmental
review (NEPA) which includes a revalidation of the original CEQA approval. The project
is scheduled to start its design phase in January 2019. The cost estimate for the
preferred built-out option is $250m (Exhibit A). There is not sufficient funding to build
this ultimate preferred option. Currently, the VTA is studying two less-expensive
interchange improvement phasing options through coordination with the Mobility
Partnership Group.
Phase I Implementation Options
Two initial phasing options are currently being evaluated by the VTA.
Phase I – Option A (New Bridge) includes (Exhibit B):
Construction of a new bridge over US 101
Construction of a two-lane SB US101 off-ramp
Signalized intersection ramps
Eliminate US101 access to/from Castro Valley Road
Estimated cost for this option is $65m
The VTA prefers this option
Phase I – Option B (Direct Ramp) includes (Exhibit C):
Maintains the current interchange configuration
Provides a direct fly-over connection from US101 to SR 25
Eliminate US101 access to/from Castro Valley Road
Estimated cost for this option is $50m
ANALYSIS
Reconfiguration of the US101/SR25 Interchange will have a positive benefit to vehicle
flows in the southern portion of Gilroy since it will provide an additional full-service
10.A
Packet Pg. 78
interchange on the US101 network. However, both initial phasing options, if built as
proposed, would cause significant traffic circulation impacts to the City of Gilroy.
Both options currently being considered by the VTA include elimination of the
US101/Castro Valley Road access. Castro Valley Road provides a direct route to
US101 for both Gavilan College and those traveling in the southern portions of Gilroy. If
closed, those drivers would be forced to use alternate routes to and from US101.
These include the interchanges at Monterey Road, 10th Street and Leavesley Road
which currently are already heavily traveled.
Significant construction is planned in the southern area of the City over the next three to
five years. The three large developments expected to contribute significant traffic to the
network include the Glen Loma Ranch development, the Hecker Pass development and
the Imwalli site. When built out, these three developments would add 1,615 residential
units and 840,000 sf of commercial development to the City. This projected
development is expected to add nearly 4,600 trips in the afternoon PM peak-hour to the
circulation network (see below).
Planned Future Development in Southern Gilroy
2019 2019 2019 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021
Single
Family
Res
Multi
Family
Res
Commercial
SQFT Retail
Single
Family
Residential
Multi
Family
Residential
Commercial
SQFT Retail
Single
Family
Residential
Multi
Family
Residential
Commercial
SQFT Retail
Glen Loma Ranch 310 180 220,000 287 325 270,000 240 0 270,000
Mwalli 200
Hecker Pass 73 60,000 20,000
TOTALS 383 180 280,000 487 325 290,000 240 0 270,000
ADT 3,616 1,318 10,570 4,597 2,379 10,948 2,266 0 10,193 45,885
AM Peak 283 83 263 360 150 273 178 0 254 1,843
PM Peak 379 101 1,067 482 182 1,105 238 0 1,029 4,582
Based on current travel patterns, it is estimated that 30% of the trips from these new
developments would use the Castro Valley Road access to US101. Without this
access, these 1350+ trips would need to find alternate access to US 101. This would
have a significant impact to the other US101 interchanges in the City and can greatly
impact current levels of service.
In addition, closing the Castro Valley Road ramp will not only cut off direct (and quick)
access to Gavilan College, which is a major local activity center, but will also force traffic
to and from the college onto the 10th Street and Leavesley Avenue interchanges.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The VTA has identified funding for this project through Measure B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed ultimate SR 152 Trade Corridor (CEQA Cleared and SR 152 Direct
Connector – Total Project Cost Estimate $250M) as proposed by the VTA, would
10.A
Packet Pg. 79
provide a benefit to the City of Gilroy and South County. As presented, the two phased
options create a significant impact to traffic flow in the southern portion of Gilroy since
both options include closure of the US101/Castro Valley Road ramps.
1. Staff recommends Phase I – Option A - New Bridge (Exhibit B), so long as it
includes either the construction of the Santa Teresa extension between Castro
Valley Road and the US101/SR25 interchange, or maintains the current Castro
Valley Road access ramps to US101.
2. Staff does not recommend Phase I – Option B - Direct Ramp (Exhibit C),
since it primarily provides more direct connection to US 101 for points south and
east of Gilroy with minimal direct benefit to Gilroy, but creates a significant impact
to traffic flows in the southern portions of Gilroy.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A - Preferred Build-out Option
2. Exhibit B - Phase I - Option A
3. Exhibit C - Phase I - Option B
10.A
Packet Pg. 80
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Exhibit A - Preferred Build-out Option (1622 : VTA Mobility Staff Report)
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Exhibit B - Phase I - Option A (1622 : VTA Mobility Staff Report)
10.A.c
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Exhibit C - Phase I - Option B (1622 : VTA Mobility Staff Report)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Discussion and Direction Related to Commercial Business
Licenses - Gilroy City Code Chapter 13 - Licenses (Business)
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
Financially Sustainable
and High Performing ☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff to:
a) Continue to apply the current City Code to commercial property owners; or
b) Revise the City Code through an ordinance amendment to exempt commercial
business properties
POLICY DISCUSSION
Should the City require “commercial property owner” businesses to obtain a business
license?
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted Ordinance Number 646 on March 20th, 1961 which
established the City’s Business License program for “Certain Businesses, Trades,
Professions, Callings, and Occupations in the City of Gilroy…” Included in the
ordinance was the definition of a “business” – “professions, trades, and occupations and
all and every kind of calling carried on for profit or livelihood.”
10.B
Packet Pg. 84
The definition of business does not include what types of businesses that are required
to obtain a business license. No reference to industrial, retail, service, or commercial is
made in the ordinance either.
Since 1961, the term “business” has been interpreted to be all-inclusive for all types of
businesses as described in the definition. The City has interpreted the definition of
business to include “commercial property owners.”
Included in the original ordinance was Section 11 which made exemptions to the
business license requirement. The only exemptions granted were:
a. Charities
b. Interstate commerce
c. Disabled veterans
d. Farmers
e. Council discretion - under this exemption category the Council may grant
exemptions to the business license requirement as described in the Ordinance:
“in all cases of doubt as to any applicant being entitled to an exemption
from license tax, or from the application of any of the provisions of this
ordinance, the burden of establishing the right to an exemption shall be
upon the applicant. All applications for exemption in such cases shall be
referred to the City Council, which shall consider and act upon the same
and grant or refuse such exemptions as in the use of its discretion it shall
deem just”
Since the ordinance was adopted in 1961, the City can find no record of appeal or
request for exemption under code section “e” by any commercial property owner. The
City recently received a request under section “e” - the review of that appeal is pending
direction from Council as requested in this report.
There are currently approximately 80 business licenses that are categorized as
“commercial property owners” operations – typically consisting of building owners that
lease space for retail and office businesses.
For example, the Gilroy Outlets operates under a single bu siness license, and all
individual retail business within the facility obtains a business license for their particular
operation. In general, if properties are adjacent to each other and owned by single
entity, only one business license is required.
ANALYSIS
The amount of each license fee varies according to the businesses’ annual gross
receipts. The minimum fee is $40 (for businesses that generate $0 in sales) and is
capped at $2,000 (for business that generates over $17.74 million in annual sales).
10.B
Packet Pg. 85
Council could consider exempting commercial property owners through an ordinance
revision; however this may trigger other issues that would need to be addressed:
1. Legal implications/fair treatment – other businesses seeking exemptions.
2. Elimination of regulatory review for commercial properties including inspections,
code enforcement, and public safety.
3. City would now be unware of property ownership.
4. Eliminate ability to share information with Board of Equalization/Internal Revenue
Service.
5. Should fees be waived – cost of program would be passed on to the general
fund.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council can revise the ordinance to exempt commercial property owners – not
recommended.
2. Council can affirm staff’s interpretation of the current City ordinance –
recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
In total, the City generates approximately $550,000 in business license revenues –
Granting an exemption to the commercial property owners would result in an annual
loss of $13,000 in General Fund revenues.
CONCLUSION
The granting of exemptions of business licenses is a complex and legal matter that may
set a precedent for other business owners to request exemptions for their business
activities. Such exemptions could significantly hinder the City’s ability to ensure code
compliance, identify property ownership, and public safety.
10.B
Packet Pg. 86
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of an Allowance for Ground-Level Office Uses in the
Downtown Historic District (Z 18-03)
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Sue O'Strander
Pamela Wu
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an effort to stimulate the downtown economy, the City Council, from 2011 to 2017,
allowed ground-level offices by right on a temporary basis. Due to ongoing inquiries
recently received by staff for ground-level offices without the need for a conditional use
permit process, staff was requested to present the current allowances and restrictions to
the City Council for consideration. As part of this preliminary discussion, staff provides
three potential alternatives. The Council may consider a temporary allowance for
ground floor office uses by right, consider certain types of office uses on a permanent
basis, or support the current allowance for office uses on the upper levels a nd with a
conditional use permit on the ground level.
POLICY DISCUSSION
10.C
Packet Pg. 87
The City Council is asked if amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and the Downtown
Specific Plan are needed to allow ground floor office uses by right in the Downto wn
Historic District.
BACKGROUND
When adopted in 2005, the purpose for the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) is to “create
a unique and identifiable downtown for Gilroy that is economically vibrant, pedestrian -
oriented and a local and visitor destination.” As stated, “an overall goal is the orderly
development of downtown Gilroy in a method consistent with the city's general plan
and…with the community's vision ...”. Specific goals were set for the different districts
within the downtown area as part of the overall vision for revitalization. Particularly,
within the Downtown Historic District (DHD), located along Monterey Road generally
between Third and Eighth Streets, the area is envisioned to be the primary destination
for retail and entertainment activities. There are approximately 100 buildings and 165
ground floor tenant spaces within this area. The goal is to provide a 24 -hour
atmosphere for shopping, eating and entertainment activities.
In order to preserve the prime ground-level tenant spaces for a vibrant downtown, less
active businesses, such as offices, are encouraged on the upper levels. The Zoning
Ordinance allows such uses to be considered on the ground floor level with an
approved conditional use permit (CUP). The cost to process a CUP application is about
$5400 and, on average, can take 4 to 6 months depending on the complexity of the
proposed scope. Through the CUP process, each request for a ground-level office use
would be carefully examined to ensure that the proposal aligns with the DSP vision to
support a pedestrian-activated environment. However, since adoption of the Downtown
Specific Plan, vacancies in the DHD area continue to be a challenge.
During the Great Recession, downtown Gilroy suffered from vacancy rates in excess of
30%. In an effort to promote the downtown economy, the City Council in 2011 approved
a zoning text amendment to allow all types of office uses at ground-level in DHD by right
(without the need for a CUP) for a period of three years. In 2014, the ground -level office
use allowance was extended for another three years to May 21, 2017. During the
temporary allowance, approximately 10 businesses, such as professional or medical
office uses, were established on the ground-level without the need for a CUP. Even
though the temporary allowance stimulated a slight increase in occupancy, the current
vacancy rate of 27% (approximately 46 vacant ground-level spaces) remains as a major
concern for the downtown property owners.
Of the current vacancies, six spaces are located between Fourth and Sixth Streets on
Monterey Road, the DHD core area. Recently, planning staff received a few inquiries
for ground-level office uses. These inquiries were for locations between Third and Fifth
Streets, and include a real estate office, a speech therapy office and a counseling
service office. Each interested party was informed of the CUP process for ground-level
10.C
Packet Pg. 88
uses and that there was no such requirement for office uses at the second floor or
higher.
Although the temporary allowance for ground-level office uses expired in May 2017,
office uses remain a permitted use by right in all areas of downtown when located on
the second floor or higher. At the March 19th City Council meeting, the Mayor requested
that staff present the current restrictions of downtown ground-level office uses.
ANALYSIS
In keeping with the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) vision that uses within the DHD be
retail and entertainment focused, ground-level storefronts are anticipated for uses that
foster strong pedestrian connections within the downtown area. Since the economic
downturn in 2008, filling downtown business locations has been a continuous challenge
for various reasons.
There is debate about ground-level office uses and their benefit or detriment to
downtown areas. Typically, cities that have allowed offices in their downtown districts
limit these to the second floor or above in order to establish and maintain an active
pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Some jurisdictions (e.g. Palo Alto, Redding,
Atascadero) that previously supported ground-level offices in their downtown districts,
have recently taken action to remove or limit such allowance to further achieve their
goals for an active downtown environment.
Redwood City’s Downtown Precise Plan identifies certain areas in their downtown core
that require ‘active’ ground floor uses. They define ‘active uses’ as those that “are
generally open to the public, generate a high volume of customer traffic, provide ground
floor display windows to promote views into the business, and sell goods that are
typically carried away by customers or services of a personal or business nature.
Inactive uses are typically not open to the general public, generate a lower volume of
customer traffic, and tend to have screened windows to maintain privacy (such as
offices and residential uses).” With that statement, Redwood City’s plan provides some
flexibility in that ground-level office uses within the required ‘active use’ areas must
obtain a Use Permit or be located on the second floor or higher. However, office uses
are allowed by-right elsewhere in the downtown core.
Should the City Council desire to make changes to the current ordinance, there are a
few approaches that can be considered. The Council may wish to :
implement a temporary allowance for ground floor office uses by right (as
previously adopted); or
retain the current allowance for office uses on the upper levels and with a CUP
on the ground level; or
consider certain types of office uses that may better support the goals and
expectations of the DSP.
10.C
Packet Pg. 89
For each possible approach, the following discussions are provided:
Consideration of temporary allowance for ground floor office uses
The City Council’s previous actions in 2011 and 2014 allowed ground-level office use in
the DHD zone district by right. As part of those actions, desktop publishing/copy shop
uses were clarified to be allowed on the ground floor, along with medical office uses and
general office uses.
Staff’s concern is that some of these office types may not align with the goal for this
unique district. In accordance with the 2020 General Plan, the area is to “encourage
pedestrian-oriented uses” that are compatible with the historic character and scale of
the downtown core. Medical office uses and clinics, for example, do not promote
pedestrian activity nor do they otherwise enliven the downtown. Should this approach
be favorable, staff would recommend that uses such as medical offices, clinics, and
laboratories be excluded from the temporary allowance, that the temporary allowance
include ‘active uses’ only, and apply to DHD zoned properties north of Fourth and south
of Sixth Streets.
Consideration of current allowance for office uses above the ground floor
The current zoning ordinance allows ground floor office uses, and considers such
requests on a case-by-case basis. A conditional use permit (CUP) process provides
such review to ensure that the proposed ground floor office use aligns with the
Downtown Vision.
While potential downtown tenants may be deterred by the CUP process, the
requirement recognizes that all such office uses may not support the desired pedestrian
activity. As part of the CUP application process, the request would be evaluated for
conformance with the vision of the DSP for a lively and pedestrian-oriented downtown.
The CUP requirement is not a preventative measure, but rather, implements and
ensures that the City’s expectations for a lively and robust Downtown are maintained.
Consideration of certain types of office uses on the ground floor
The vision and goal of the Downtown Specific Plan is to create a pedestrian -oriented
destination for both locals and visitors. To successfully implement this vision, it is
important to encourage those ground-level uses that will increase or otherwise improve
walkability. Certain land uses can contribute to or diminish from these expectations.
As temporary allowance for ground floor office uses has been contemplated by the City
Council for more than 6 years, the issue may warrant further evaluation on a more
permanent basis. This approach would require a thorough review of best practices in
other jurisdictions (such as clarification of ‘active uses’), and presenting a suitable
approach for Gilroy that will still encourage pedestrian activity.
CONSIDERATION OF PROCESS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
10.C
Packet Pg. 90
With regard to processing changes to the Zoning Ordinance, both State Law and the
City Code require such amendment be presented to the Planning Commission before
consideration by the City Council. Proposed amendments to downtown land uses
would necessitate changes to both the zoning ordinance and downtown specific plan
documents. There are also minimum public notice requirements for each of these
hearing bodies.
An alternative process would be the adoption of an Emergency Ordinance. This type of
amendment requires a 4/5 vote to pass. Under the City Charter, “an ordinance declared
by the Council to be necessary as an emergency measure for preserving the public
peace, health or safety” can be adopted and take effect immediately.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Consideration of temporary allowance for ground floor office uses. Under this
alternative, staff would return to City Council with necessary amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Specific Plan, and requests City Council to
direct staff to include only those ‘active’ office uses which would support the
Downtown Vision to increase pedestrian activity in DHD zone properties north of
Fourth Street and south of Sixth Street. As part of the process, public outreach
would occur, at minimum, with downtown stakeholders. Under this option,
staffing resources would need to be shifted to provide expedited focus on this
issue. Staff recommends this alternative as a means to support additional
opportunities for economic activity.
2. Consideration of current allowance for office uses above the ground floor. Under
this alternative, there would be no change to the existing ordinance. Staff would
continue to require CUPs for proposed ground floor uses in the DHD and
consider each request for its merits to activate downtown pedestrian walkability.
This process is already in place and would not require any further changes.
Under this alternative, staff would work closely with future applicants as
expeditiously as possible to reduce overall processing time . In lieu of
considering Alternative #1, staff recommends this as the secondary
consideration as there would be no change to the existing process that is
already in place.
3. Consideration of certain types of ongoing office uses on the ground floor. Under
this alternative, a permanent ordinance amendment would be pursued. At
minimum, this would involve research and evaluation of best practices by other
agencies. Staff would anticipate community outreach efforts, and consideration of
various ‘active’ ground-level uses that demonstrate conformance with the
Downtown Vision and goals. This approach would require more dedicated staff
resources to accomplish. At this time, staff would not recommend this
alternative.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
10.C
Packet Pg. 91
No fiscal impact is anticipated with the recommended alternative.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Council to provide further direction in bringing the zoning
ordinance amendment back for adoption, to temporarily allow certain ground-level office
uses by right (Alternative #1).
NEXT STEPS
Should the City Council direct staff to proceed with the recommendation, at the earliest,
the next key steps would be anticipated:
May 17, 2018 – Planning Commission consideration and recommendation. (This
assumes adequate public outreach can occur before May 4, 2018.)
June 18, 2018 – City Council consideration of ordinance introduction.
July 2, 2018 – City Council adoption of recommended ordinance.
August 1, 2018 – ordinance would become effective.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
In preparation of this report, staff reached out to the Gilroy Economic Development
Corporation and the Gilroy Downtown Business Association, for input. In general,
support for economic development opportunities exists, but there is also concern that
office uses may result in a detriment to Gilroy’s vision for a pedestrian-oriented
downtown. There seemed to be general agreement to include ‘active’ office uses on the
ground-level, but not within the core area (i.e. Monterey Road, between Fourth and
Sixth Streets). These concerns were included in the recommendation. Once Council
has provided the direction for staff to proceed, adequate noticing for the next Planning
Commission hearing will be conducted to consider any zoning ordinance amendments.
10.C
Packet Pg. 92
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Presentation of Proposed 2018 Fireworks Enforcement Strategy
and Consideration of Modifications to Gilroy City Code Section
10A.14 (Penalties) to Increase the Maximum Fine for Illegal
Fireworks Citations
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Police Department
Submitted By: Scot Smithee
Prepared By: Scot Smithee
Joseph Deras
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
a) Approval of the Police Department’s proposed 2018 fireworks enforcement
strategy; and,
b) Direction to staff to prepare an ordinance amending G ilroy City Code Chapter 10,
Section 10A.14 Entitled "Penalties" to increase the maximum fine for illegal
fireworks citations from $500 to $1,000
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Gilroy Police Department receives a large volume of calls around the July 4 th
holiday regarding the use of illegal fireworks. A fireworks enforcement plan is
developed each year and additional police officers are assigned to work fireworks
enforcement. The Police Department has developed strategies to enforce illegal
fireworks activity. One proposed deterrent is to increase the penalties for illegal
fireworks violations. In addition to the enforcement component of the proposed plan,
public outreach will be conducted to inform the public in efforts of gaining a higher level
10.D
Packet Pg. 93
of compliance from the public.
BACKGROUND
At the August 21, 2017 Council Meeting the Police Department provided an update on
the fireworks enforcement for July 4, 2017. Council requested this plan be updated with
suggestions on how to increase the effectiveness of our efforts on deterring the use of
illegal fireworks in the future.
On April 5, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2004-03 adding section 10A.8
to Chapter 10A of the City Code to establish a permit fee for fireworks sales. The
purpose of this fee is to alleviate the financial impacts of providing public safety services
directly related to the 4th of July celebrations.
Each year the Fire and Police Chiefs develop a fireworks mitigation strategy for the July
4th holiday. For the Police Department this plan includes a public education and
awareness component and an enforcement component. The costs of this plan are then
factored into the fireworks service fee paid by the local fireworks vendors.
Calls for illegal fireworks on the July 4th holiday have consistent or the last several
years:
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fireworks Call for Service
Although calls for service have remained high, citations issued for fireworks violations
has been steadily decreasing:
10.D
Packet Pg. 94
We have traditionally deployed officers in marked patrol vehicles in an effort to provide
high visibility in anticipation this would help mitigate the use of unlawful fireworks. The
results of our efforts have been negligible. The use of illegal fireworks has continued to
be prolific.
DISCUSSION
Staff Deployment
Staff looked to other law enforcement agencies to determine what if any different
strategies were used to combat the illegal fireworks problem. Emphasis was placed on
agencies that were able to significantly increase their enforcement effort while deterr ing
people from participating in the use of illegal fireworks.
Of the various Cities contacted the two closest to Gilroy, geographically, demonstrated
the best results with their efforts employed in 2017.
The Morgan Hill Police Department deployed approximately the same number of police
officers as did the Gilroy Police Department. In 2017 all but one of their officers was
driving unmarked vehicles in order to be more covert. They issued 20 citations as a
result of their efforts.
Hollister also deployed officers in unmarked vehicles. They deployed 5 fewer officers
than were deployed in either Gilroy or Morgan Hill, but they issued a total of 29
administrative citations.
Smart Device Application
The City of Hollister tried a new smart device application which allows residents to send
in reports of illegal fireworks usage with a latitude and longitude. Officers had direct
10.D
Packet Pg. 95
access to this application and could use this data to strategically place themselves near
reported hot spots.
Staff was able to identify two different applications that residents could use to report
illegal fireworks usage directly to the Police Department; “ForeAlert” and “Nail Em”.
Both applications can be downloaded by residents to their smart devices and used to
report illegal fireworks activity.
After exploring both options staff chose “ForeAlert” to use as a trial basis during this
year’s July 4th holiday. This technology allows a resident to capture their precise
location when reporting illegal fireworks usage. This information is immediately viewable
to Police Department Staff by placing a point on a map of the City. Officers can then
focus their attention to areas of town with the highest number of reports represented on
the map.
Fines
Last year the City of Hollister increased the maximum fine for illegal fireworks violations
to $1,000.00. The other Cities surveyed had a maximum fine of $300.00 to $500.00
which is consistent with the current City of Gilroy City Code. Staff believes increasing
the maximum fine amount from $500.00 to $1,000.00 would further deter the use of
illegal fireworks.
Proposed Strategies
Based on this research staff has identified alternative strategies for deterring the use of
illegal fireworks while working to enhance enforcement activities. The following
strategies are proposed for July 4, 2018:
1. Request Council approval to modify Gilroy City Code 10A.14 increasing the
maximum fine for violations of the fireworks ordinance from $500.00 to
$1,000.00.
2. Implement the “ForeAlert” application allowing community members to report
illegal fireworks usage directly to the police department via their smart devices.
3. Deploy 10 officers in unmarked vehicles to observe violations more covertly. The
goal is to be more effective in issuing administrative citations and when
appropriate criminal citations.
4. Deploy 2 officers using dual-sport police motorcycles allowing for more flexibility
in navigating congested areas and accessing law violators more rapidly
5. Issue press releases and post to our social media platforms information on our
zero tolerance approach to illegal fireworks usage, including information on our
increased enforcement efforts and the increased fines.
ALTERNATIVES
10.D
Packet Pg. 96
1. Staff is recommending Council consider modifying the Gilroy CityCity Code
10A.14 (Penalties) to increase the maximum fine for illegal fireworks from
$500.00 to $1,000.00 per violation. It is staff’s belief that public outreach
regarding higher fines will help deter the use of illegal fireworks. Should
Council provide such direction, staff will bring back an ordinance to amend
the Gilroy City Code. (Staff Recommends)
2. Council may direct the Police Department to institute the recommended
changes to the fireworks deployment strategy. The use of technology which
involves our residents’ direct involvement in reporting combined with a more
covert enforcement plan should result in a higher number of citations issued
to those who use illegal fireworks. To help deter the use of illegal fireworks
staff is recommending public outreach about higher fines and a greater
likelihood of receiving a citation. (Staff Recommends)
3. Council can direct the Police Department to continue with the existing
fireworks deployment strategy. (Staff Does Not Recommend)
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be additional costs associated with this new strategy, in the amount of
$17,837.13. In addition to the staff time expended in years past, the new costs include
rental vehicles to support undercover operations and the new technology application.
The total cost of developing and deploying this fireworks mitigation strategy is presented
in the chart below. These expenses will be covered through the fireworks mitigation
plan and paid for by the local fireworks vendors.
NEXT STEPS
If Council choses to consider the proposed amendment to Chapter 10 of the Gilroy City
Code this item will be scheduled for introduction at the May 7, 2018 meeting. Should
the City Council accept the recommended amendment language at that meeting it will
then be scheduled for adoption at the following regular meeting on May 21, 2018 and
2017 Hourly Number Hours Total
Police Department
Patrol (OT) $215.71 12 5.5 $14,236.86
Dispatch (OT) $184.57 2 5.5 $2,030.27
Total Police labor $16,267.13
Additional Costs
Rental Vehicles $620.00
ForeAlert Tech. $950.00
Sub Total (Addt'l Costs) $1,570.00
Grand Total $17,837.13
10.D
Packet Pg. 97
will be effective 30 days thereafter.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Police Department Public Information Officer (PIO) in coordination with the City PIO
will develop a public information campaign relative to fireworks education. This pla n will
include formal press releases and information sharing over social media platforms to
include instructions on how to download and use the ForeAlert reporting application.
10.D
Packet Pg. 98
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Update Process
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Sue O'Strander
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 2, 2018, the City Council requested a status report on the progress of the
Gilroy 2040 General Plan Update and its relationship to the Economic Development
Strategy Update in progress. A question has arisen regarding the timing of the Gilroy
Economic Development Corporation’s (EDC) study of potential economic development
sites and coordination with the City’s General Plan Update process. The EDC study is
anticipated to be completed by the end of June. The findings and recommendations of
that report will be presented to the City Council at a later date for further direction as it
relates to the General Plan Update.
BACKGROUND
Economic Development Sites Study
At their January 9, 2018 study session on economic development, the City Council
identified the need for a study of potential economic development sites as an initiative
acknowledged in the Economic Development Framework. The study is intended to
10.E
Packet Pg. 99
address a variety of current issues affecting the City’s ability to achieve needed
commercial and industrial development to enhance local job growth and increase City
revenue generation. These include the reduction in available land resulting from the
adoption of the Urban Growth Boundary, minimal job and revenue generation from
recent large warehouse/distribution projects, and infrastructure and other development
challenges of certain sites.
The study is jointly sponsored by the EDC and the City, with EDC providing overall
direction. The firm of EPS, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. has been retained to
conduct a study of potential economic development “opportunity sites” throughout the
City. The outcomes of the study may include recommended policy changes or other
actions intended to achieve both short- and long-term improvements in the City’s
economic and fiscal performance. The EDC study will be completed by the end of
June. The findings and recommendations will be presented to the City Council at a later
date for further direction.
General Plan Update Progress
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) met four times between June and
October, 2018 and completed selection of three land use alternatives for analysis and
comparison. Attachment 1 to this report includes a description of these alternatives,
which represent a range of potential future job growth and residential development in
five focus areas where future new growth is anticipated.
On March 22, 2018, the GPAC reviewed the preliminary draft Alternatives Analysis
Report. Three land use alternatives were evaluated on eleven criteria, including housing
and job capacity, housing affordability, fiscal health, transportation, and greenhouse gas
emissions. The final Alternatives Analysis report will be completed and available to the
public on April 9, 2018. A community workshop to present the report and receive public
comments has been scheduled on April 26, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. at Eliot School.
Subsequent meetings will focus on selection of the preferred land use alternative in
accordance with the anticipated schedule, as follows:
April 26 Community Workshop
May 24 General Plan Advisory Committee
July Planning Commission
August City Council
The remainder of the General Plan Update process will include tasks to update the
policy document, prepare the environmental report, and plan adoption. At this time, the
following timeframe is anticipated for completion of each of these tasks:
Summer 2018 – Winter 2018 Update Draft General Plan Policy Document
Winter 2018 – Summer 2019 Prepare Environmental Impact Report
Fall 2019 – W inter 2019 General Plan 2040 Adoption
10.E
Packet Pg. 100
Coordination Discussion
As described above, the General Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative will comprise the
recommended quantity and locations of land for economic development and new
residential development. The results of the EDC study may include information and
recommendations that would be relevant to consider in the selection of the Preferred
Land Use Alternative. As such, the City Council may wish to consider suspending the
General Plan process and selection of the Preferred Land Use Alternative pending the
completion of the EDC study and consideration by the City Council of how the findings
and recommendations may affect the General Plan Update.
Depending on the timing and extent of the City Council direction to the General Plan
process following the review of the EDC study, the GPAC work to select a Preferred
Land Use Alternative, currently scheduled for May 24 would tentatively resume in
August or September. This would result in a delay of up to four months to the current
General Plan Update schedule.
NEXT STEPS
Should the City Council suspend the General Plan Update , following City Council review
of the EDC study, staff will prepare a revised schedule for completion of the General
Plan Update for presentation to the City Council.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The GPAC was notified of the April 16, 2018 City Council agenda item to consider this
report. It was also posted on the Gilroy 2040 General Plan website.
Attachments:
1. GilGP_2017 Alternatives Report_Maps
10.E
Packet Pg. 101
28
City of Gilroy | General Plan Alternatives Report
Citywide Alternative A
Alternative A is consistent with the 2015 Preferred Land Use Alternative selected at the end of the
original alternatives phase in 2015, but has been modified to reflect the UGB Initiative. Alternative
A contains a balance of single-family and multi-family housing, largely due to the alternative
including both Neighborhood District Low in the south and High in the north. Alternative A reflects
the currently-adopted Downtown Specific Plan. First Street includes a lower-density mixed-use
designation, which has the potential for multi-story housing, office, and retail development.
A
22,240
Residents
3,950
SF Units
3,340
MF Units
16,290
Jobs
Focus Area 1: Concept 1
Focus Area 2: Concept 1
Focus Area 3: Concept 1
Focus Area 4: Concept 1
Focus Area 5: Concept 1
Focus Area
Selection
Low-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood District High
General Services Commercial
City Gateway District
Mixed-Use Low
Employment Center
Industrial Park
Public and Quasi-Public
Downtown Specific Plan
Neighborhood District Low
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Visitor-Serving Commercial
Focus Area Land Use Designations
10.E.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: GilGP_2017 Alternatives Report_Maps (1640 : Gilroy 2040 General Plan Status Report)
29
Public Review Draft | April 2018
Citywide Alternative B
Alternative B includes all of the focus area concepts that maximize Gilroy’s housing and employment
holding capacity, including the Downtown Gilroy Station Area Preferred Alternative. In comparison
to the two other alternatives, this scenario includes a higher ratio of multi-family dwellings that are
spread throughout the community. This is largely due to the use of the Neighborhood District High
designation in both the northern and southern areas of the city, mixed-use high along the First Street
corridor, and mixed-use multi-family housing centered around the future high-speed rail station
downtown.
B
33,020
Residents
4,720
SF Units
6,170
MF Units
22,360
Jobs
Focus Area 1: Concept 1
Focus Area 2: Concept 2
Focus Area 3: Concept 2
Focus Area 4: Concept 3
Focus Area 5: Concept 2
Focus Area
Selection
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood District High
General Services Commercial
City Gateway District
Mixed-Use High
Industrial Park
Public and Quasi-Public
Downtown Specific Plan
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Visitor-Serving Commercial
Mixed-Housing
Mixed-Use Office/Housing
Office
Station Area Plan
Focus Area Land Use Designations
10.E.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: GilGP_2017 Alternatives Report_Maps (1640 : Gilroy 2040 General Plan Status Report)
30
City of Gilroy | General Plan Alternatives Report
Citywide Alternative C
Alternative C retains the single-family character of Gilroy, while maintaining a dense downtown
core focused on infill and mixed-use development. Other large corridors such as First Street include
a lower-density mixed-use designation, which has the potential for multi-story housing, office, and
retail development. The sharp increase in employment in Alternative C is linked to the reduction
of Neighborhood District and Industrial Park in the north to accommodate the Employment Center
designation, which is meant to yield higher-intensity job types.
C
19,290
Residents
3,900
SF Units
2,440
MF Units
21,440
Jobs
Focus Area 1: Concept 4
Focus Area 2: Concept 1
Focus Area 3: Concept 1
Focus Area 4: Concept 1
Focus Area 5: Concept 3
Focus Area
Selection
Low-Density Residential
Medium-Density Residential
High-Density Residential
Neighborhood District Low
General Services Commercial
City Gateway District
Employment Center
Industrial Park
Public and Quasi-Public
Mixed-Use Low
Downtown Specific Plan
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Visitor-Serving Commercial
Focus Area Land Use Designations
10.E.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: GilGP_2017 Alternatives Report_Maps (1640 : Gilroy 2040 General Plan Status Report)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Fiscal Year 2019 Capital Improvement Plan Projects for
Funding by SB-1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act
Meeting Date: April 16, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the Fiscal
Year 2018-2019 budget to incorporate a list of projects funded by SB 1: The Road
Repair and Accountability Act.
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 1, (SB 1) (Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017), The Road Repair and
Accountability Act of 2017 will provide the first significant, stable, and ongoing increase
in state transportation funding in more than two decades. With the passing of the new
transportation bill, there are funds dedicated to fixing aging roads and bridges,
improving goods movement, and reducing traffic congestion, and is anticipated to
generate $54 billion over the next decade, split between state and local agencies.
Among other things, SB 1 will enable cities and counties to finally address significant
maintenance, rehabilitation and safety needs on their local street and road system. SB
1 is anticipated to provide approximately $1.5B per year for local streets and roads.
According to estimates by the League of California Cities, Gilroy is estimated to receive
$311,716 in Fiscal Year (FY) 18, and $935,092 in FY 19 for local street pavement
10.F
Packet Pg. 105
maintenance. Ongoing the City can expect an approximate amount of $800,000 to
$900,000 per year after FY 19. In providing this funding, the Legislature has increased
the role of the California Transportation Commission (Commission), including oversight
of SB 1. SB 1 creates new responsibilities for the Commission relative to SB 1 funding,
including development of guidelines, review of project lists submitted by cities and
counties, reporting to the State Controller, and receiving reports on completed projects.
In September 2017, Council approved a resolution and a list of projects to be
implemented using the FY 18 funding. A list of projects that Gilroy intends to complete
in Fiscal Year 2019 using SB 1 funds is due to the Commission by May 1, 2018. Given
the delayed availability of SB 1 funding in FY 2018, the projects previously identified
and approved by Council will be rolled into the FY 2019 program.
ANALYSIS
In order to receive the available SB 1 funds, the City must adopt the list of SB 1 funded
pavement maintenance projects through a resolution. “Projects”, in this case, means a
list of streets that we anticipate will receive pavement maintenance with SB 1 funds, and
the pavement maintenance can be done in one project, or even combined with other
planned pavement maintenance projects.
The list of street segments was selected using the City’s StreetSaver pavement
maintenance database program. These street segments are intended to be part of a
larger pavement maintenance project, but the selected street segments would be paid
for using SB 1 funds. Overall, street segments are selected to provide the g reatest
improvement in average pavement condition index for a given funding level. This
resolution will add one street segment (San Ysidro Ave from 2,200 feet north of
Leavesley to the intersection with Las Animas Avenue, an approximate length of 1,500
feet) to the already approved list of projects. The updated list of proposed street
segments for paving using SB-1 funding is below:
Road Name Beg Location End Location Classification Section Area(Sf)
Farrell Ave Wren Ave Monterey Rd A Arterial 83,506
Eighth St Princevalle St Church St C Collector 70,528
Martin St Monterey Rd Chestnut St C Collector 47,949
Murray Ave I.O.O.F. Ave Leavesley Rd C Collector 114,600
San Ysidro
Ave
2250 Ft N Of
Leavesley Rd Las Animas Ave C Collector 61,245
SB 1 funds, as well as Measure B pavement maintenance funds in the future, will
provide a much needed boost to the pavement maintenance program for the City of
Gilroy. The Capital Improvement Plan approved by Council in June, 2017 did not
include these additional projects. A budget amendment request for additional staff will
be forthcoming at a later date.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
10.F
Packet Pg. 106
The resolution includes a budget amendment in the amount of $1,246,808 ($935,092 for
FY 2018/19 and $311,716 for FY 2017/18) to increase the pavement maintenance
revenues to account for the SB 1 funds.
SB 1 requires that cities maintain existing general fund levels for transportation funding
at levels equal to or greater than their annual average expenditures during the 2009 -10,
2010-11, 2011-12 fiscal years, which is known as “maintenance of effort” (MOE)
requirement. The bill authorizes the State Controller’s Office to audit local governments
for compliance and subject local governments to reimbursing the state for non -
compliance.
For Gilroy, per the State Controller’s Office this amounts to approximately $1.2 million
annually from the General Fund. For FY 2019, the City is scheduled to implement $2.5
million in pavement maintenance, in addition to the SB1 candidate projects.
CONCLUSION
Approval of a resolution with a list of projects to be funded using SB 1 funds is required
in order to receive SB 1 funds. Council’s approval will help further enhance the
pavement condition on the City’s streets network.
NEXT STEPS
The attached resolution, once approved, will be sent to the Commission for approval so
that Gilroy can receive its share of the SB 1 local pavement maintenance funds.
Attachments:
1. Resolution SB-1 Projects 2018-19
10.F
Packet Pg. 107
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 BUDGET TO INCORPORATE
A LIST OF PROJECTS FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
(Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor
in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls
statewide; and
WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure
the residents of our City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and
which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the City must include a list of all projects proposed to receive funding from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, in the City budget,
which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule
for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy will receive an estimated $ 311,716 in RMRA funding in
Fiscal Year 2017-18 and $935,092 in Fiscal Year 2018-19 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, the City used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project
list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that
also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and
WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate over
377,000 square feet of pavement in just the first year, and implement the complete streets
ordinance on streets in the project and into the future; and
WHEREAS, the 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
found that the City’s streets and roads are, on average, in good condition, but 15 percent of the
streets are in poor or very poor condition. This revenue will help increase the overall quality of
our road system and over the next decade will keep our streets and roads in a good condition; and
10.F.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Resolution SB-1 Projects 2018-19 (1634 : SB-1 Project List Resolution FY 2019)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
WHEREAS, without revenue from SB 1, the City’s average Pavement Condition Index, a
measure of the pavement condition, would have otherwise continued to decrease at an increasing
rate; and
WHEREAS, if the Legislature and Governor failed to act, city streets and county roads
would have continued to deteriorate, having many and varied negative impacts on our
community; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties own and operate more than 81 percent of streets and
roads in California, and from the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to
school, or walk to the bus station, people are dependent upon a safe, reliable local transportation
network; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the local street and road system provides well-paying
construction jobs and boosts local economies; and
WHEREAS, the local street and road system is also critical for farm to market needs,
interconnectivity, multimodal needs, and commerce; and
WHEREAS, police, fire, and emergency medical services all need safe reliable roads to
react quickly to emergency calls and a few minutes of delay can be a m atter of life and death;
and
WHEREAS, maintaining and preserving the local street and road system in good
condition will reduce drive times and traffic congestion, improve bicycle safety, and make the
pedestrian experience safer and more appealing, which leads to reduced vehicle emissions
helping the State achieve its air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals; and
WHEREAS, restoring roads before they fail also reduces construction time which results
in less air pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run-off; and
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads
infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets
infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant
positive co-benefits statewide.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Gilroy, State of California, as follows:
10.F.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Resolution SB-1 Projects 2018-19 (1634 : SB-1 Project List Resolution FY 2019)
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The CIP for fiscal year 2018-19 is amended to incorporate the following list of projects
planned to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:
Each of the following street segments would receive a pavement treatment consisting of removal
and replacement of failed areas (known as “digouts”) and a rubberized chip seal, topped with a
slurry seal (known as a “rubberized cape seal”). The life this this treatment is expected to extend
the useful life of each street segment by 7 years. The projects are expected to be completed by
the end of Fiscal Year 2018-19.
Road Name Beg Location End Location Classification Section Area(Sf)
Farrell Ave Wren Ave Monterey Rd A Arterial 83,506
Eighth St Princevalle St Church St C Collector 70,528
Martin St Monterey Rd Chestnut St C Collector 47,949
Murray Ave I.O.O.F. Ave Leavesley Rd C Collector 114,600
San Ysidro Ave
2250 Ft N Of
Leavesley Rd Las Animas Ave C Collector 61,245
3. The CIP budget for fiscal year 2018-19 is amended as follows:
Appropriate Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act (SB 1) funding in the amount of
$1,246,808.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of April 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
10.F.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Resolution SB-1 Projects 2018-19 (1634 : SB-1 Project List Resolution FY 2019)