HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/2018 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
May 18, 2018 4:15 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, MAY 21, 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
Ad ministration 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
05/21/2018 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 May as Foster Care Awareness Month
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. Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First
Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley Road - Monterey Road -
First Street
1. Staff Report:
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
05/21/2018 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 Committee, 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 May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Opening of a Recruitment Period for Six Seats on the Youth Commission
C. Declaration of Surplus Fleet Vehicles and Authorization to Dispose of the
Surplus
D. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Requesting
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Fiscal Year 2019 Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bic ycle Project Funding
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
05/21/2018 Page4 E. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14 (Penalties)
Pertaining to Fireworks Violation Penalties (Introduced 5/7/18 with a 7 -0
vote)
F. Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus Event May 24 - June 4, 2018
G. Approval of Agreements for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee
and the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program
H. Annual Adoption of the City's Investment Policy Per California Code
Section 53646(a).
I. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Authorizing Officers
Who May Submit Applications and Conduct Financial Transactions with the
California Governor's Office of Emergency Services on Behalf of the City of
Gilroy
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Approval of a Contract Amendment With Harris & Associates in the
Amount of $155,000 for On-Call Engineering and City Surveyor Services
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approve an Amendment to the Agreement with Harris & Associates for continued
on-call engineering and City surveyor services, and approve a budget
amendment in the amount of $155,000.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Approval of the Community Development Block Grant and Housing Trust
Fund Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan
1. Staff Report: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Possible Action:
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF).
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Presentation of Work Plans and Follow Up Information from the First Phase
of the Board and Commission Assessment Report
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
05/21/2018 Page5 1. Staff Report: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Receive report and provide direction to staff; and,
b) Consideration of the Request of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to amend
the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Ordinance No. 2009-03.
B. Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design Options for the Gilroy Center
for the Arts
1. Staff Report: Maria De Leon, Recreation Department Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report.
C. Review of the Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management (Traffic Calming)
Program
1. Staff Report: Girum Awoke, Public Works Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Report on City of Gilroy Use of Consultants for Professional and Technical
Services
1. Staff Report: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive the report.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
05/21/2018 Page6 A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2) Property:7491 Railroad Avenue, Gilroy, APN 841 -06-001(Creamery
Building) Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator; Kristi Abrams,
Community Development Director; Other Party to Negotiations:Mark
Garrison; Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2) Property: 7517 and 7525 Monterey St, Gilroy, APN 799-06-069;
Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator; Kristi Abrams,
Community Development Director; Other Party to Negotiations: Amit Patel
and Sunil Patel on Behalf of Akshar LLC; Under Negotiations: Price and
Terms of Payment
C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.8 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a)
(2) Property: 7541 and 7443 Monterey St and 7440 Gourmet Alley, Gilroy,
APN 799-06-048 (Dick Bruin Building); Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City
Administrator; Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director; Other
Party to Negotiations: Jose Montes on Behalf of Sil Vest LLC;Under
Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment
D. CONFERENCE WITH NEGOTIATOR – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 and Gilroy City Code
Section 17A.11 (4) Collective Bargaining Unit: Local 2805, IAFF Fire Unit
Representing Gilroy Fire Fighters; City Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City
Administrator; LeeAnn McPhillips, HR Director; Anticipated Issues(s)
Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working Conditions;
Memorandum of Understanding: MOU between the City of Gilroy and the
Gilroy Fire Fighters
E. CONFERENCE WITH NEGOTIATOR - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, Gilroy City Code Section
17A.11 (4) Collective Bargaining Unit: Gilroy Police Officers Association,
Inc. Representing Gilroy Police Officers; City Negotiators: Gabriel
Gonzalez, City Administrator; LeeAnn McPhillips, HR Director; Anticipated
Issues(s) Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working Conditions;
Memorandums of Understanding: MOU Between City of Gilroy & Gilroy
Police Officers
1. Public Comment on Closed Session Items
2. Adjourn to Closed Session
ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each
Councilmember if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and Gilroy Code
Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required
under Gilroy Code Section 17A.11 (5)
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
MAY, 2018
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
05/21/2018 Page7 21* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
JUNE, 2018
4* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
18* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
JULY, 2018
2* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
AUGUST, 2018
6* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
20* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, resource families, also known as foster care families,
open their hearts and homes to offer help to children whose families are in
crisis, and they play a vital role in helping children and families heal and
reconnect, while preparing them for a healthy future; and
WHEREAS, resource families are the unsung heroes that serve as the
primary source of love, protection and support to the abused and neglected
children of Santa Clara County; and,
WHEREAS, in Gilroy we believe the family, serving as the primary
source of love, identity, self-esteem and support, is the very foundation of our
community; and
WHEREAS, dedicated resource families frequently adopt our
community’s most fragile and vulnerable children, giving them permanency and
a forever home during traumatic times in their lives; and
WHEREAS, Santa Clara County’s resource families deserve our
gratitude and respect for the work they do each and every day to ensure these
children receive love and needed support.
NOW, THEREFORE I, Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City
of Gilroy on this 21st day of May, 2018, along with my colleagues on the City
Council as Mayor, do hereby proclaim the month of May, 2018 as
Foster Care/ Resource Parent
Awareness Month
in the City of Gilroy and we wish to recognize the valuable, dedicated and
inspirational contributions of the resource families in our community.
_____________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Proclamation Naming May as Foster Care Awareness Month (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations)
1
Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street
In conjunction with the upcoming work on
Leavesley Rd. – Monterey Rd – First St.
3.A
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
2
A Brief History:
Welburn Gets Special Treatment
• 1963: The neighborhood on and around Welburn Avenue is completed.
• June 8, 1964: Freeway Agreement Approved (Resolution 860)
Freeway on/off ramps decided. Leavesley is one of them.
• June 17, 1968: Proposal is made at the City Council meeting for the
widening of Welburn Avenue and its use as an extension of Leavesley
Road.
• June 17, 1968: Proposed barricade is removed from Welburn Avenue
just west of Church (Resolution 1266)
• August 1968: General Plan Circulation Map approved. Proposed
barricade is removed. Welburn Avenue is designated a Collector and is
broken between Wren and Morey (Santa Teresa).
3.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 3
Wren 3.A
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 4
• 1970: City initiates plans to widen Welburn. Plan is stopped by
residents.
• 1989: City declares Welburn Avenue between Church and Wren
“Blighted” as part of the Community Redevelopment Program.
• 1989: City initiates more plans to widen Welburn. Plan is stopped by
residents.
Man
Hwy. 152
2
Redevelopment Project Area
City Limits
PROJECT AREAi
Proposed Redevelopment Project Area Deletions
3.A
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 5
The Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program
(2008-2010)
Issues:
Traffic Volume on Welburn: 10,000+ vehicles per day
Cut-Through Traffic: 70%-90% (Normal vs. Actual Trips-per-Household)
Speeders: 1,500+ per day (15% of 10,000 = 1,500)
Trucks: Over 80 per day average
Actions Taken by the City:
Four-way stop sign at Welburn and Hanna
Double Yellow Striping with Botts’ Dots between Wren and Wayland
Additional Not-a-Truck-Route signs added.
Residents were asked to write or call the several truck companies to
complain.
Results:
Traffic Volume: Traffic volume has since increased.
Cut-Through Traffic: Still 70%-90%.
Speeders: Increase in the number of speeders with the increased traffic
volume.
Trucks: Still a large number of trucks. Probably increased.
Trips per Household Explained:
Total Traffic Volume (2008): 12,500 + 9,100 + 5,400 = 27,000
Total Households: ±700
Trips per Household: 27,000/700 = 38.6
Normal Trips per Household: 9.52
Normal Traffic Volume: 9.52 x 700 = 6,664
6,664/27,000 = 25% (9.52/38.6 = 25%)
Cut-Through Traffic = 75%
Vehicle trips generated by Cambridge Place:
3.A
Packet Pg. 13 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 6
Quality of Life on Welburn Avenue
(Is it this noisy on other neighborhood streets?)
A Quick Education on Noise Levels
Perceived Noise Level
Distance:
Distance
Increase /
Decrease from
Noise Source
Decibel
Level
1/4x (5 ft.) 80 dBA
1/2x (10 ft.) 70 dBA
1x (20 ft.) 60 dBA
2x (40 ft.) 50 dBA
dBA A-Weighted Sound Level: The sound pressure level in decibels as
measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network.
Ldn Day/Night Noise Level: The average A-weighted sound level during a 24-
hour day, obtained after addition of 10 dB to sound levels measured in the
night from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.
Decibel Level
Percieved
Increase /
Decrease
80 dBA 4x
70 dBA 2x
60 dBA 1x
50 dBA 1/2x
3.A
Packet Pg. 14 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 7
From the 2002 General Plan:
3.A
Packet Pg. 15 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 8
The 2004 Amendment:
3.A
Packet Pg. 16 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 9
3.A
Packet Pg. 17 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 10
Sound Survey, Noon to Noon (24 hr. and Ldn)
3.A
Packet Pg. 18 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 11
From the recent Wireless Telecom Ordinance
3.A
Packet Pg. 19 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 12
FIGURE 7-1
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR
COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENT
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
EDEN AREA GENERAL PLAN
Normally Acceptable
Specified land use is satisfactor y, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved
are of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable
Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Unacceptable
New construction or development should generally not be under taken because
mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies.
(a)Residential development sites exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 Ldn shall be analyzed following protocols in Appendix Chapter 12,
Section 1208A, Sound Transmission Control, California Building Code.
3.A
Packet Pg. 20 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 13
3.A
Packet Pg. 21 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 14
Table 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Noise Source Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Noise Source
120 dBA
Jet fly-over at 300 meters Rock concert
110 dBA
Pile driver at 20 meters 100 dBA
Night club with live music
90 dBA
Large truck pass by at 15 meters
80 dBA Noisy restaurant
Garbage disposal at 1 meter
Gas lawn mower at 30 meters 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 3 meters
Commercial/Urban area daytime Normal speech at 1 meter
Suburban expressway at 90 meters 60 dBA
Suburban daytime Active office environment
50 dBA
Urban area nighttime Quiet office environment
40 dBA
Suburban nighttime
Quiet rural areas 30 dBA Library
Quiet bedroom at night
Wilderness area 20 dBA
Most quiet remote areas 10 dBA Quiet recording studio
Threshold of human hearing 0 dBA Threshold of human hearing
5
3.A
Packet Pg. 22 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 15
The major issue on Welburn is Excessive Cut-through Traffic
Where does it come from?
This traffic includes 80+ Trucks per day
1,500+ Speeders per day
Excessive Noise from all of the above
The Root Cause of all of the above is Cut-Through Traffic (75%-80%)
Kern Santa Teresa Wren Wayland First
Mantelli Church Welburn
Las Animas Park
12,500
7,700
(+3,400)
5,400 Miller 6,800
3,400 11,300
7,800
(+1,300) Westwood 4,600 6,500
(+1,300) (+1,900)
4,700
3,400
12,200
9,100
21,500 20,400 20,200 Carmel 19,000 18,500 14,400 17,100
9,500 8,600 7,800 4,800
6,000 Hirasaki 3,300
16,100
15,800
1,200
16,800
3,600
N
Monterey (+270%)
(–16%)
3.A
Packet Pg. 23 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
May 2018 16
Potential Results from Significantly Reducing Cut-through Traffic:
Reduced Speeders
Reduced Truck Traffic
Reduced Accidents
Based on all of the preceding, I request that Council direct Staff to find
the most effective solution to reduce cut-through traffic on Welburn and
that the solution be implemented along with the State upgrade to First
Street.
3.A
Packet Pg. 24 Communication: Presentation by Tim Gavin - Encouraging Traffic on Welburn to Use First Street in Conjunction with the Work on Leavesley
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2018
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Velasco.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Leroe -Muñoz.
2. Invocation
The invocation was led by Pastor Greg Quirke of South Valley Community
Church.
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
Deputy City Clerk Suzanne Guzzetta announced that the agenda had been
posted on May 2, 2018 at 11:45 a.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mayor Roland Velasco Mayor Present 6:00 PM
Marie Blankley Council Member Present 5:55 PM
Dion Bracco Mayor Pro Tempore Present 5:56 PM
Daniel Harney Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Cat Tucker Council Member Present 5:53 PM
B. Orders of the Day
There were no agenda changes.
C. Employee Introductions
Finance Director Forbis introduced newly appointed Finance Manager Bryce
Atkins.
Public Works Director Awoke introduced newly hired Maintenance Workers
Marco Casillo and Jacod Lunn.
Police Chief Smithee introduced newly hired Police Records Technician's Celina
Delacruz, Luana Lascala, and Officer Brent Hughes, Corporal Kenny Elsworth,
and Sergeant Mike McMahon.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Recology So. Valley Presentation of Business Recycler of the Year
Award to Gilroy Garlic USA RV Park
6.A
Packet Pg. 25 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
Julie Alter of Recology South Valley presented the Award to the Gilroy Garlic
USA RV Park.
2. Proclamation Naming May Bicycle Awareness Month
Mayor Velasco presented the proclamation.
3. Proclamation Naming May 6-12, 2018 as National Travel and Tourism
Week
Mayor Velasco presented the proclamation.
4. Proclamation Recognizing May 20 -26, 2018 as Public Works Week
Mayor Velasco presented the proclamation.
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
James Suner requested that the Council agendize a discussion of his Tentative
Map and project on Greenfield Drive describing delays in proc essing the
application
Ryan McCabe voiced concerns about speeding and dangerous driving in the
Longmeadow neighborhood.
Public comment was then closed.
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco reported on the South County Youth Task Force and
noted that juvenile crime remains lower, but issues with disrespect for peace
officers is growing.
Council Member Tucker noted that the Gilroy Welcome Center had launched
their new visitgilroy.com website, and it had already received an award.
Mayor Pro Tem Harney reported on the Gilroy Downtown Business Association
meeting, Silicon Valley Energy meeting and thanked staff, the School District and
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for their participation to develop a safe route to
school for children at Alexander Station. He concluded by sharing a reminder
about bike to school week.
Council Member Tovar spoke on the recent fundraiser at the Wiley House and
thanked the Police Department and City Administrator for their help with a
downtown restaurant opening.
Mayor Velasco reported on the South County Youth Task Force and issues with
growing disrespect from younger individuals, and then spoke on his participation
on the South County Ag Task Force.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Bracco asked to agendize an item on the processing of
development applications.
The full Council agreed to agendize the item.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
6.A
Packet Pg. 26 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
A. Minutes of the April 16, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Acceptance of the Donation of a Kodiak Communications Van from the
State of California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES)
C. Partial Tract Acceptance and Reduction of the Faithful Performance and
Payment Security Bonds for In-Tract Improvements, Property Improvement
Agreement No. 2016-01, Hecker Pass Heartland Estates Phase II Tract
10315
D. Approval of a Parcel Map, Property Improvement Agreement No. 2018-04
and Public Improvement Plans With Performance Food Group, APN 808-43-
005
E. Vacation of a Portion of Cobblestone Court Designated as a Public Street
Right of Way in the Hecker Pass Specific Area, and Approval of an Access
Easement and Covenant Agreement With Syngenta Flowers, LLC (APN 810-
85-034)
F. Proclamation Recognizing Eagle Scout Joshua Ryan Lance
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Award of a Professional Services Contract to Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. for Corporation Yard Storm Water Compliance
Improvements Project No. 18-RFP-PW-405
Public Works Director Awoke presented the report.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Award a professional services contract to Wood Environment &
Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. for design and engineering services for
Corporation Yard Storm Water Compliance Improvements, Project No. 18 -
RFP-PW-405 in the not to exceed amount of $118,200, establish a project
contingency of approximately 10% ($11,800), and authorize the City
Administrator to execute the agreement and related documents, including
agreement amendments up to the contingency amount
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
B. Award of a Professional Services Contract with BKF Engineers for the
Design of the Monterey Road Rehabilitation, Project No. 18-PW-400
Public Works Director Awoke presented the report.
There were no public comments.
6.A
Packet Pg. 27 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
Possible Action:
Award a professional services contract to BKF Engineers for the design of
the Downtown Monterey Road Rehabilitation Project No. 18 -PW-400 in the
not to exceed amount of $136,613, establish a project contingency b udget
of 15% ($20,492), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the
agreement and related documents, including agreement amendments up to
the contingency amount.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Approval of the Community Development Block Grant and Housing Trust
Fund Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan
Community Development Director Abrams requested that the Council continue
the item to May 21, 2018.
Possible Action:
Continuation of the public hearing for the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual
Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to May 21, 2018.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
B. A Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 103+/- Acre Site into 23 Multi-
Family Condominium Lots for up to 125 Townhouse Units, 3 Parcels for
Public Facilities (a Fire Station and Two Public Trails), 7 Private Open
Space Lots and 4 Lots for Future Development on a Property Located North
of Santa Teresa Boulevard Between West Tenth Street and Miller Avenue;
APN’s: 808-18-003 (portion); 808-19-010 (Portion), 808-19-022, 808-19-023,
and 808-19-024 (Portion), the Glen Loma Corporation c/o Tim Filice
Applicant (TM 17-01)
Planner II Durkin presented the staff report.
The public hearing was opened.
Connie Rogers asked for certainty as to when the fire station and bridge will be
built.
Scott Alarid voiced concerns with the numbers presented in the staff report
including current capacity in schools, road construction issues and traffic.
The public hearing was then closed.
6.A
Packet Pg. 28 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
Possible Action:
Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving
tentative map TM 17-01 to subdivide approximately 103 acres into 23 multi-
family condominium lots for up to 125 townhouse units, 3 parcels for
public facilities (a fire station and two public trails), 7 private open space
lots and 4 lots for future development on a property located north of Santa
Teresa Boulevard between West Tenth Street and Miller Avenue; APN’s:
808-18-003 (portion); 808-19-010 (portion), 808-19-022, 808-19-023, and 808-
19-024 (portion), filed by the Glen Loma Corporation c/o Tim Filice,
Applicant.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Marie Blankley, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
x A Tentative Map Request to Subdivide a 103+/- Acre Site into 23 Multi-
Family Condominium Lots for up to 125 Townhouse Units, 3 Parcels for
Public Facilities (a Fire Station and Two Public Trails), 7 Private Open
Space Lots and 4 Lots for Future Development on a Property Located North
of Santa Teresa Boulevard Between West Tenth Street and Miller Avenue;
APN’s: 808-18-003 (portion); 808-19-010 (Portion), 808-19-022, 808-19-023,
and 808-19-024 (Portion), the Glen Loma Corporation c/o Tim Filice
Applicant (TM 17-01)
Possible Action:
Council direct staff to contact the developer to conduct outreach for the
below market units, and for staff to report on the background on the
commercial center and any efforts the developer would be taking to create
a successful commercial effort.
RESULT: APPROVE [6 TO 0]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
AWAY: Daniel Harney
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14 (Penalties)
Pertaining to Fireworks Violation Penalties, and Adoption of a Resolution
Setting Forth the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of
the Gilroy City Code
Police Chief Smithee presented the report.
There were no public comments.
6.A
Packet Pg. 29 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
Possible Action:
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
x Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14 (Penalties)
Pertaining to Fireworks Violation Penalties, and Adoption of a Resolution
Setting Forth the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of
the Gilroy City Code
Possible Action:
b) Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, section 10A.14 (Penalties)
pertaining to fireworks violation penalties, and
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
x Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14 (Penalties)
Pertaining to Fireworks Violation Penalties, and Adoption of a Resolution
Setting Forth the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of
the Gilroy City Code
Possible Action:
c) Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy setting
forth the administrative penalty schedule and late payment charges for
certain violations of the Gilroy City Code
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
B. Discussion to Commission a Community Poll to Evaluate the Potential of a
Revenue Ballot Measure for the City of Gilroy
The report was presented by City Administrator Gonzalez.
Public comment was opened.
Ron Kirkish spoke on the difficulty of the issue and offered comments related to
city employee pension costs.
6.A
Packet Pg. 30 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
7
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
John Troini noted that the City needs to pause in its housing development before
adding an additional tax.
Amanda Rudeen asked for confirmation that the polling firm will get a certain
number of responses and not just make a certain number of calls.
Public comment was then closed.
The Council directed staff to go forward with polling on the public safety revenue
measure sales tax.
Possible Action:
Council discussion and direction to either:
a) Direct staff to solicit proposals from firms to conduct polling to measure
community support for a potential revenue ballot measure and delegate
authority to the City Administrator to select the most qualified firm
RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 2]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
NAYS: Dion Bracco, Daniel Harney
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Decision on Preferred Alignment for Mobility Partnership US 101/State
Route 25 Interchange Improvements
The staff report was presented by Transportation Engineer Heap.
Public comment was opened.
Alex Larson shared concerns with the loss of access to the freeway from his
business, and emphasized the need for access to Santa Teresa.
Public comment was then closed.
Possible Action:
Selected the preferred alignment of Option A with the construction of the
Santa Teresa extension between Castro Valley Road, or maintaining the
current Castro Valley Road access ramps to US101.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
B. Report on the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Update Process
Senior Planner Stan Ketchum presented the report.
Public comment was opened.
6.A
Packet Pg. 31 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
8
City Council Meeting Minutes
05/7/2018
James Suner voiced concerns about programs being linked to the General Plan.
Connie Rogers expressed her concerns with the public workshop being
postponed.
Public comment was then closed.
Possible Action:
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
C. Approval of a 3% Salary Increase for City Clerk Shawna Freels Effective
Retro-Active to January 1, 2018
Mayor Velasco presented the report.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
Approval of City Clerk’s salary increase to $117,870.40 annually.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Cat Tucker, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator Gonzalez reported on meeting with High Speed Rail
representatives.
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels,MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 32 Communication: Minutes of the May 7, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Opening of a Recruitment Period for Six Seats on the Youth
Commission
Meeting Date: May 21, 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 recruitment for six seats on the Youth Commission with terms ending September
30, 2018.
BACKGROUND
This September, there will be six, 2-year term seats come vacant on the Youth
Commission. Since the Commission does not meet during the summer, the City
traditionally opens the recruitment period from the end of the school year and runs it
until the beginning of the next school year to solicit a sufficient number of applications.
Youth ages 12-18 who reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Gilroy Unified
School District are eligible to apply.
Youth Commissioners provide the City Council and City staff with input regarding local
youth and teen issues and work with City leaders to develop policies, create events and
special programs that positively influence the youth and other members of the Gilroy
community. The eleven (11) member Commission regularly meets on the second
Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. Members also participate in special events and on
subcommittees.
6.B
Packet Pg. 33
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that Council authorize the opening of a recruitment period through
September 11th and interview applicants at the September 17th regular Council meeting
to fill these pending vacancies.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The included flyer will be sent to all media outlets and will be published on the City
website, through social media and on cable channel 17. The Gilroy Unified School
District Public Information Office will assist in distributing the material to each junior high
and high school.
This year City staff will also be working with a new grassroots neighborhood parent
organization “Vuera Vida” to gain a wide cross section of applicants to fill these
openings.
Attachments:
1. Publisher Recruitment Notice
6.B
Packet Pg. 34
Being a Gilroy Youth Commissioner
Youth Commissioners have an important responsibility in providing the City Council and City Staff with
insight regarding youth and teen issues. Members of the Youth Commission experience a unique oppor-
tunity to work with city leaders to implement policies, create events and special
programs that will positively influence the youth and other members of the Gilroy community.
Responsibilities
This eleven (11) member Commission meets once a month. Meetings are held on the
second Monday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at the Gilroy Senior Center Meeting Room, 7371 Hanna
Street. Members also participate in special events and on subcommittees.
Current Openings
The City of Gilroy is currently seeking six (6) youth ages 12 -18 to serve two-year terms, ending
September 2020. All applicants must reside within the jurisdictional area of the Gilroy Unified School
District.
The City Council will interview applicants on Monday, September 17, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall in
the City Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street in Gilroy. Applicants must be present at interviews to
be considered for appointment.
Applications may also be submitted by mail to: Gilroy City Clerk’s Office, 7351
Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 or by email to shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
or suzanne.guzzetta@cityofgilroy.org.
Applications Due on
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 5:00 p.m.
If you have any questions, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at(408) 846-0204 or (408) 846-0469.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Publisher Recruitment Notice (1646 : Youth Commission Recruitment)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Declaration of Surplus Fleet Vehicles and Authorization to Dispose
of the Surplus
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Rosemary Guerrero
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Declare the selected fleet vehicles and equipment as surplus property to be sold at
auction, or disposed of by the most efficient means possible.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy has routinely used auction as a fast and convenient means of
disposing fleet vehicles and equipment that have reached the end of their useful life.
The Council-adopted City of Gilroy Purchasing Policy, Section IV City Property,
Procedure No. 2 Surplus Property states:
“Section 2.41 B 8 of the Municipal Code states: “Sell personal property,
Sell subject to the approval of the City Administrator, such personal
property as, in the opinion of the department head, officer, board or
commission controlling it, will not be needed for further public use except
that such personal property having a value of more than fifty dollars shall
have the approval of the council prior to sale.”
6.C
Packet Pg. 36
It shall be the responsibility of the department head to determine when an item is
to be identified as obsolete or excess surplus property. After identification, the
surplus property may be transferred to another department or used as a trade-in
for new equipment. For final disposal, City Council shall approve items to be
“surplused”. Surplused items may be donated, sold through a competitive sealed
bid process, or sold at public auction to another government agency or to a non-
profit organization.
In order of precedence, an opportunity for surplused items may be offered at no
cost to: 1) Gilroy Unified School District, 2) The City of Gilroy’s Youth Center, and
3) Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. Surplused items unlikely to generate significant
revenue and that are not acquired by other City departments may be donated to
other public agencies, to Gilroy’s sister city of Tecata, Mexico or to non -profit
organizations. Any donation of surplus City property to a non-profit organization
shall be approved by the City Council upon a finding that (a) such non -profit is
qualified under Section 501(c)(3) if the Internal Revenue Code and (b) the
donation will benefit the City and its constituents.
DISCUSSION
The following vehicles have been selected to be surplused because they are no t able to
pass a smog test and no longer operative. The vehicles are selected based on the age,
wear and tear and mileage. The vehicles are taking up valuable space in the
Corporation Yard.
The Auction company charges the City to pick up and haul away the vehicles. This cost
can range from $80 to $125 per vehicle depending on the size of the vehicle. The trailer
will cost more as this will not fit on a typical car hauler. The charge of transporting (to
Vallejo) the vehicles is deducted from the sale and Gilroy will receive only the net
amount.
The auctions are held every other month. The next scheduled auctions are June 23rd
and August 2018. If the auction company can pick up the vehicles by June 16th, then
the City can have these items auctioned on June 23rd.
All cars and equipment are sold individually with no minimum bid and no reserve. The
auction company will try to smog the vehicles and if they pass the smog and the safety
inspection the vehicle will be sold to the public. If the vehicles do not pass the smog or
safety inspection they can only be sold to a licensed dealer. The dealer will have the
responsibility to make repairs to the vehicle for resale. The fee for the smog check is
$65, however the inspection is free. The auction company also handles all the
paperwork for the sale of the vehicle.
The list of vehicles and equipment proposed to be surplused is as follows:
Year Make Model VIN # License Mileage KBB
6.C
Packet Pg. 37
Value
1 1994 CHEVROLET CORSICA 1G1LD55M4RY211221 294492 96,176 $900.00
2 1994 FORD RANGER 1FYCR10U7RPA92921 294471 133,057 $500.00
3 2000 ALJO SKYLINE 3080 H157951 1051312 N/A N/A
4 1997 CHEVROLET S-10 BLAZER 1GNDT13W6V2246388 1014727 75,563 $850.00
5 1997 CHEVROLET S-10 BLAZER 1GNDT13WXVK226189 1011966 77,487 $850.00
6 2001 OLDSMOBILE AURORA 1G3GR64H214139046 1109656 105,671 $725.00
7 2003 CHEVROLET IMPALA 2G1WF55K539409243 2QNM164 140,387 $635.00
8 2003 FORD E-250 1FTNS24L43HA79615 1105649 299,881 $1,200.00
9 2004 DODGE DURANGO 1D4HB48N24F155725 2QTR934 168,188 $967.00
10 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2FAHP71WO5X172439 1220853 119,906 $1,200.00
11 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2FAHP71W95X172438 1220852 119,695 $1,200.00
12 2006 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2FAHP71WX6X152510 1239165 113,826 $1,600.00
13 2006 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2FAHP71W16X152511 1239166 115,776 $1,600.00
14 *2006 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 2FAFP71W66X123898 1229790 94,675 $1,600.00
Staff recommends that the 2006 Ford Crown Victoria #14, vehicle license number
1229790, be donated to the Gilroy Police Officers Association (GPOA) to be used for a
Special Olympics Event sponsored by police departments in various cities. The GPOA
is a 501(c)(4) tax exempt charitable organization, and typically would not be eligible
under the policy. However, this vehicle will be used by GPOA for a fundraising event
supporting the Special Olympics organization which is a 501(c)(3) organization. This
vehicle was selected because it is the only vehicle capable of running in the demolition
derby. Every other vehicle for surplus has an engine problem (i.e. coolant,
transmission). The Kelly Blue book value may reflect a higher value, however it’s not
taking into consideration that the majority of these were formerly police vehicles under
heavy use.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could choose not to surplus the vehicles. However they would remain in the
Corporation Yard rusting and taking up space and over time could result in a hazardous
spill of gasoline and/or oil. Not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City anticipates auction revenue between $4,000 and $6,000. Proceeds will be
deposited to the City’s Fleet Replacement Fund. All the above vehicles are from the
General Fund (Police, Admin Pool and BLES), with the exce ption of the 1994 Ford
Ranger which is a SCRWA vehicle. The Fleet Fund is an internal service fund and all
6.C
Packet Pg. 38
vehicles are purchased out of this fund. Being that it is an internal service fund all
revenue and expenses are allocated back to the appropriate departments.
6.C
Packet Pg. 39
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Requesting
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Fiscal Year 2019
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle
Project Funding
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Nirorn Than
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 to request a
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) allocation of Fiscal Year 2019
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle project funding for
maintenance of the Uvas Creek levee trail.
BACKGROUND
On May 15th, 2017, the City Council passed resolution 2017-18 to request funding from
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the allocation of Fiscal Year
2018 Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3) grant for $128,578. This grant
request is intended for the Uvas Creek Levee Trail Rehabilitation Project. The City’s
levee rehabilitation project was delayed in order to accommodate the future Uvas Creek
Levee Rehabilitation Project by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). For this
6.D
Packet Pg. 40
reason, the MTC TDA 3 Fund was banked for 2018 and can be reapplied again for
Fiscal Year 2019 (FY 19).
MTC, as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region,
awards TDA 3 grant funding for cities to use for pedestrian and bicycle projects. For FY
19, the City of Gilroy’s share was increased to $173,705, which includes funds banked
from prior years. TDA funds are eligible for the following types of projects:
1. Construction and/or engineering of a bicycle or pedestrian capital project
2. Maintenance of a multi-purpose path which is closed to motorized traffic
3. Bicycle safety education program (no more than 5% of county total)
4. Development of a comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans
(allocations to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once
every five years)
5. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes.
The TDA 3 project must be ready to implement within one year of the application cycle.
ANALYSIS
A levee abatement project is currently in design by the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) along Uvas Creek. The SCVWD project scope includes the rehabilitation of
levee slopes on either side of the levee that runs along Uvas Creek from the Gilroy
Sports Park to Miller Avenue. Under a prior use agreement with the SCVWD,
Maintenance of the Levee Trail falls under the City’s obligation. To that end, the City
Council has appropriated funding for this portion of the trail in the amount of $100,000.
It is expected that the SCVWD project will cause additional damage to the levee trail
pavement. Based on preliminary design findings, $100,000 will only provide for repair of
failed pavement areas. By allocating $173,705 in TDA 3 funds to the project, it would be
possible to apply surface treatment to the existing pavement, such as slurry seal and
pavement striping, which will further improve the condition of the trail. The SCVWD has
expressed willingness to include the trail pavement improvement work as part of the
levee rehabilitation project. The City will reimburse the SCVWD for the above
mentioned trail improvements that will be performed by their contractor. Staff has
confirmed with the MTC Funding Manager that the City will be able to use TDA3 Fund
to reimburse SCVWD for the trail improvement works.
The TDA grant requires approval by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. This item
was presented before the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission on May 2, 2017 and was
approved.
The attached resolution is required to be adopted by the City Council in order to receive
the grant funds.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
6.D
Packet Pg. 41
The total cost of the project is $273,705 of which $173,705 will be funded by the TDA
grant with the remaining $100,000 allocated in the FY 2018 budget.
CONCLUSION
As shown above, TDA funds may be spent on various types of bicycle and pedestrian
projects, but must be ready to implement within one year of the application cycle. As
the Levee abatement project is already under design, the TDA grant could be met by
allocating these funds to reimburse SCVWD for the Levee Trail pavement maintenance
work as part of the larger project. These grant funds are very timely because it allows
staff to develop a much better Levee Trail pavement maintenance project than we could
otherwise afford, by taking advantage of the SCVWD project and resulting in a better
maintained trail for all users.
NEXT STEPS
Once the resolution has been approved by Council, it will be re-sent to MTC for
approval of the grant application and the TDA funds.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
City staff is currently working with the SCVWD project team to provide public outreach
and information regarding the project. Signs will be posted on the Levee Trail ahead of
construction activities to let trail users know of impending construction. Information will
also be disseminated on social media, and the City of Gilroy website.
Attachments:
1. Resolution MTC Grant 2018
2. TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018
6.D
Packet Pg. 42
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY TO REQUEST THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION
OF FISCAL YEAR 2018 (FY 18) TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
PROJECT FUNDING
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities
Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional
transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use
of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay r egion, has adopted MTC Resolution
No.4108, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects,”
which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA
Article 3” funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests for the allocation of TDA
Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each
county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of
TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which
are for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GILROY AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City of Gilroy declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3
funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code;
2. That there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or
projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of
the City of Gilroy to carry out the project;
3. That the project has been reviewed by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission of the City of
Gilroy;
4. That the City of Gilroy attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in
Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it resolved
5. That a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying
supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency,
countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the
case may be, of Santa Clara County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide
coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Resolution MTC Grant 2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Resolution MTC Grant 2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Attachment A
Page 1 of 1
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year
2018 (FY 18) Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project
Funding
Findings
1. That the City of Gilroy is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Gilroy legally impeded from undertaking the project(s)
described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.
2. That the City of Gilroy has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s)
described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all
pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and
clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the
projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner
and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being
requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the
sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design
engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized
traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the
development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of
a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3
funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Gilroy within the prior five fiscal
years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan.
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum
safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire.
11. That the City of Gilroy agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s)
and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Resolution MTC Grant 2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
RESOLUTION NO. _________
Attachment B
Page 1 of 1
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: FY 18 Applicant: City of Gilroy
Contact person: David Stubchaer, PE Interim City Engineer
Mailing Address: 613 Old Gilroy Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
E-Mail Address: david.stubchaer@cityofgilroy.org Telephone: (408) 846-0275
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) Glenn Roberts, PE Interim Public Works Director
E-Mail Address: glenn.roberts@cityofgilroy.org Telephone: (408) 846-0260
Short Title Description of Project: Levee Trail Pavement Maintenance
Amount of claim: $128,578
Functional Description of Project:
This project will construct a pavement maintenance project on the existing Levee Trail adjacent to Uvas Creek between the
Sports Park and Santa Teresa Blvd. The maintenance will consist of repairing failed pavement areas, restoring shoulder
backing, slurry sealing or microsurfacing the existing pavement, and restriping the trail. The Levee Trail is a multi-purpose
pathway for use by pedestrians and bicycles, and not open to motorized traffic.
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, engineering, construction, and contingency).
Use the table below to show the project budget for the phase being funded or total project. Include prior and proposed future
funding of the project. Planning funds may only be used for comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Project level planning
is not an eligible use of TDA Article 3.
Project Elements: The TDA funds being requested will be used only for construction costs. The local funds will be used for
construction,
construction management, and design costs.
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals
TDA Article 3 $0 $128,578 $0 $0 $128,578
list all other sources:
1. City of Gilroy $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
2.
3.
4.
Totals $0 $228,578 $0 $0 $228,578
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the
approximate date approval is anticipated).
NO – scheduled for
May 15, 2017
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a
separate page. NO
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to
Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via:
http://www.dot.ca.gov).
YES
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC)? (If "NO," provide an
explanation). Enter date the project was reviewed by the BPC: May 2, 2017 TBD
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Resolution MTC Grant 2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project
(pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk
or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
NO, CEQA has not yet
been completed for
this project. It is
anticipated that this
project is categorically
exempt under CEQA
§15301.
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion
date of project (month and year) June, 2018 YES
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant
arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to
maintain the facility provide its name:
)
YES
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Resolution MTC Grant 2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY TO REQUEST THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2018 (FY 18)
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
PROJECT FUNDING.
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code
(PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation
planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians
and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation
planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No.4108,
entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects,” which
delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article
3” funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article
3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the
San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA
Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for
the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; now, therefore, be it
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City of Gilroy declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3
funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code;
2. That there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or
projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of
the City of Gilroy to carry out the project;
3. That the project has been reviewed by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission of the City of
Gilroy;
4. That the City of Gilroy attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in
Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it resolved
5. That a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying
supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency,
countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the
case may be, of Santa Clara County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide
coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
6.D.b
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
City of Gilroy
Resolution No. ________
Page 2 of 5
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2017 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.D.b
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
RESOLUTION NO. ________
Attachment A
Page 1 of 1
Re: Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year
2019 (FY 19) Transportation Development Act Article 3 Pedestrian/Bicycle Project
Funding
Findings
1. That the City of Gilroy is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Gilroy legally impeded from undertaking the project(s)
described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.
2. That the City of Gilroy has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project(s)
described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all
pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and
clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the
projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner
and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being
requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B, the
sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and/or design
engineering; and/or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized
traffic; and/or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; and/or for the
development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and/or for the development of
a comprehensive bicycle and/or pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3
funding for such a plan has not been received by the City of Gilroy within the prior five fiscal
years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle,
pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan.
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum
safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire.
11. That the City of Gilroy agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project(s)
and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
6.D.b
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
RESOLUTION NO. _________
Attachment B
Page 1 of 1
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: FY 19 Applicant: City of Gilroy
Contact person: Nirorn Than, Engineer I
Mailing Address: 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
E-Mail Address: Nirorn.than@cityofgilroy.org Telephone: (408) 846-0293
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) Ogarita Carranza, Management Analyst
E-Mail Address: Ogarita.Carranza@ci.gilroy.ca.us Telephone: (408) 846-0255
Short Title Description of Project: Levee Trail Pavement Maintenance
Amount of claim: $173,705
Functional Description of Project:
This project will perform pavement maintenance on the existing Levee Trail adjacent to Uvas Creek between the Sports Park
and Miller Avenue. The maintenance will consist of repairing failed pavement areas, restoring shoulder backing, slurry sealing or
microsurfacing the existing pavement, and restriping the trail. The Levee Trail is a multi-purpose pathway for use by pedestrians
and bicycles, and not open to motorized traffic.
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, engineering, construction, and contingency).
Use the table below to show the project budget for the phase being funded or total project. Include prior and proposed future
funding of the project. Planning funds may only be used for comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plans. Project level planning
is not an eligible use of TDA Article 3.
Project Elements: The TDA funds being requested will be used only for construction costs. The local funds will be used for
construction, construction management, and design costs.
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals
TDA Article 3 $0 $173,705 $0 $0 $173,705
list all other sources:
1. City of Gilroy $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000
2.
3.
4.
Totals $0 $273,705 $0 $0 $273,705
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the
approximate date approval is anticipated).
NO – scheduled for
May 21, 2018
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a
separate page. NO
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to
Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via:
http://www.dot.ca.gov).
YES
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC)? (If "NO," provide an
explanation). Enter date the project was reviewed by the BPC: No – May 22, 2018
6.D.b
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project
(pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk
or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
NO, CEQA has not yet
been completed for
this project. It is
anticipated that this
project will be
approved through the
Joint Valley Habitat
permit with SCVWD
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion
date of project (month and year) April 2018 YES
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant
arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to
maintain the facility provide its name:
)
YES
6.D.b
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: TDA3_Claim_Forms_Rev 4-23-2018 (1667 : TDA 3 Funding for FY 2019 Uvas Creek Trail Rehabilitation)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14
(Penalties) Pertaining to Fireworks Violation Penalties (Introduced
5/7/18 with a 7-0 vote)
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Police Department
Submitted By: Scot Smithee
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Joseph Deras
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City
Code Chapter 10A, section 10A.14 (Penalties) pertaining to f ireworks violation
penalties.
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2006 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 2006-48 which
established a fine schedule for violations of the City Code. The current fine schedule
has been outlined in Resolution 2006-48 as $250.00 for the first violation; $500.00 for
the second violation; and $750.00 for each additional violation. Approval of the
amendment to the City Code deals with criminal violations relative to the use of illegal
and/or dangerous fireworks while approval of the Resolution increases the maximum
penalties for administrative violations relative to the use of illegal and/or dangerous
fireworks.
6.E
Packet Pg. 53
On April 16, 2018 the City Council approved the Police Department’s strategies outlined
in the staff report regarding illegal fireworks. One strategy was to increase the
maximum fine amounts for use of illegal fireworks from $500 to $1,000. These new fine
amounts will be publicized leading up to the 4th of July holiday as a component of
dissuading those who may otherwise consider using illegal fireworks.
At the May 7, 2018 meeting Council introduced an ordinance amending Gilroy City
Code Chapter 10A, section 10A.14 pertaining to illegal fireworks violation penalties , to
increase the maximum fines to $1,000.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy
City Code Chapter 10A, section 10A.14 (Penalties) pertaining to fireworks
violation penalties (Staff Recommends)
2. Council can choose not to adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Chapter 10A, section 10A.14 (Penalties)
pertaining to fireworks violation penalties (Staff does not recommend)
FISCAL IMPACT
No negative impact to the General Fund. There is potential for increased revenue from
administrative citations for illegal fireworks.
NEXT STEPS
The Police Department will coordinate with the Gilroy Fire Marshal when preparing the
annual fireworks informational fliers and advertising. This will include information about
the fine schedule and our planned enforcement strategies.
Additionally we will provide this information using our social media platforms and the
local government channel leading up to the 4th of July holiday.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 10A
6.E
Packet Pg. 54
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX 1 4822-7225-8659v1
CCHU\04706083
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY AMENDING CHAPTER 10A OF THE
GILROY CITY CODE ENTITLED “FIREWORKS”
REGULATING THE SALE, USE, AND STORAGE OF SAFE
AND SANE FIREWORKS
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution article XI, section 7, and the City
Charter, section 600, the City of Gilroy (“City”) has the authority to enact ordinances which
promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 10A of the Gilroy City Code regulates the local retail sale, use, and
storage of “Safe and Sane Fireworks” as defined in section 12529 of the California Health and
Safety Code; and
WHEREAS, each year the City Fire and Police Departments receives a large volume of
citizen complaint calls concerning the illegal use of Safe and Sane Fireworks and “Dangerous
Fireworks,” as defined in Section 12505 of the California Health and Safety Code, in the period
surrounding the 4th of July; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has found and determined that the modification to Gilroy
City Code, Chapter 10A, Section 10A.14, pertaining to criminal fines for violating this chapter is
necessary to deter the use of illegal fireworks and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
residents of the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 10A, FIREWORKS, Section 10A.14, entitled “Penalties” is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“Persons violating this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1000.00), or
by imprisonment in the city or county jail for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days, or
both such fine and imprisonment.”
SECTION II
If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise void or invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby declares that it would have passed and
adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase
6.E.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Ordinance Amending Chapter 10A (1689 : Ordinance Fireworks Penalties)
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX 2 4822-7225-8659v1
CCHU\04706083
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions,
sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION III
Pursuant to section 608 of the Charter of the City of Gilroy, this Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date it is adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____day of May, 2018, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
__________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.E.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Ordinance Amending Chapter 10A (1689 : Ordinance Fireworks Penalties)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus Event May 24 - June
4, 2018
Meeting Date: May 21, 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
Approve special event permit for Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus to hold a circus
event May 24, 2018 - June 4, 2018 at 6605 Automall Parkway.
BACKGROUND
Circus permits are processed through the special event and business license
application processes pursuant to Chapter 13 and 13A of the Gilroy City Code. Th e City
Code specifies that applications for circus events be approved by the City Council 30
days prior to the event.
The applicant has stated that the Circus, which travels through the State of California,
has had many of their routine locations not materialize. The applicant has requested
that the City processes the application knowing that it could be rejected. This Circus is
based on mostly acrobatic type acts, juggling and clowns. It relies on a few live animals,
none of which are exotic in nature.
DISCUSSION
6.F
Packet Pg. 57
The special event application for Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus was submitted on
April 30, 2018. The location of the event will be 6605 Automall Parkway across from
Gilroy Toyota.
The Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus has held a circus in Gilroy in 2007, 2008, 2009,
2014 and 2016. There have been no reported problems with the conduct of this circus’s
operation. As of the date of this staff report, the Circo Hermanos Caballero Circus
special event application is complete and final permit fees have been paid. Staff does
not foresee any issues with the Circus.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The permit fee provides cost recovery for all needed inspections.
Attachments:
1. Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18
6.F
Packet Pg. 58
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Special Event 18050007 - Circo Hermanos Caballero - Event Date 5 24 18 to 6 4 18 (1681 : Approval of Circo Hermanos Caballero
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Agreements for the Countywide AB 939
Implementation Fee and the Countywide Household Hazardous
Waste Collection Program
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of agreements for the Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee and the
Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program, and authorize the City
Administrator to execute the agreements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City is part of the countywide integrated waste management system and has
benefitted from participating in countywide programs for decades. Two countywide
agreements are required to continue the City’s participation. Executing these
agreements will result in fee revenues continuing to be transferred to the City and will
ensure that City residents can continue to conveniently dispose of Household
Hazardous Waste.
BACKGROUND
Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee
For over 20 years, Santa Clara County has collected a fee to offset each jurisdiction’s
6.G
Packet Pg. 84
solid waste management and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW ) management
expenses. Named after the state bill that required all jurisdictions to establish recycling
programs, the Countywide AB 939 Fee is collected at waste transfer and disposal
facilities by facility operators and remitted to the County quarterly. In order for the fee to
be practically enforced, every jurisdiction in the County must approve the same
agreement.
The AB 939 Fee has two components. The first compo nent, the Program Fee of $1.50
per ton, is charged to assist in funding integrated waste management activities. The
County transfers Program Fee revenues to each jurisdiction quarterly based on the
waste tonnage emanating from the jurisdiction. The second component, the HHW Fee
of $2.60 per ton, is held by the County and used to directly offset the HHW program
costs associated with the use of the program by each jurisdiction’s residents. If the
HHW Fee revenues exceed a jurisdiction’s HHW program costs at t he end of the fiscal
year, the remaining funds are transferred to the jurisdictions to be used to pr omote or
support HHW management.
Countywide HHW Collection Agreement
For decades, the City has met its obligation to provide for HHW management by
participating in the Countywide Collection Program. This popular program provides City
residents with the opportunity to participate in several collection events each month.
The permanent collection center in San Martin has improved the convenience
associated with these services. It is estimated that nearly 900 Gilroy households will
participate in a collection event in the coming fiscal year.
The HHW Agreement includes a base assumption that 4% of each jurisdiction’s
households will participate in the program annually. Since over 5% of the City’s
households are anticipated to participate, an augmentation to the 4% base assumption
must be specified in Section 17 of the Agreement. Based on the anticipated
participation by City residents, an augmentation of $20,000 is recommended. As
discussed below in the fiscal impact section, this amount should be completely offset by
the revenues collection by the Countywide AB 939 Fee.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
AB 939 PROGRAM FEE REVENUES: AB 939 Program Fee revenues of $75,000 are
anticipated for the 2018/2019 Fiscal Year. These fees are collected by the County and
remitted to the City quarterly.
HHW FEE REVENUES AND PROGRAM COSTS: It is estimated that providing HHW
collection services to Gilroy residents participating in th e County program will cost
approximately $106,000 in Fiscal Year 2018/19. Since the HHW Fee revenues credited
to Gilroy for this purpose should total approximately $129,000, a $23,000 payment from
the County is anticipated. If City participation is lower than anticipated, any additional
6.G
Packet Pg. 85
HHW Fee revenues remaining in the City’s credit with the County will be refunded to the
City for use in promoting the program. Conversely, resident participation above the
projected amount may reduce the amount of the City’s payment.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could decide to not approve the HHW Collection Agreement and
direct staff to further evaluate the provision of these services. STAFF DOES NOT
RECOMMEND, as it would be impossible to provide equally convenient services
to residents without paying significantly higher costs.
2. There is not a viable alternative to approving the AB 939 Fee Agreement as this
is a single countywide agreement that must be approved by every jurisdiction in
the County.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Since the recommended action is an extension of a long-standing program with no
changes proposed, no public outreach activities were conducted prior to presenting the
agreements for Council consideration. Should the HHW Agreement be approved, staff
will continue to inform the public about the availability of the County program.
Attachments:
1. Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program
2. Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee
6.G
Packet Pg. 86
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide HHW Collection Program (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
6.G.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Agreement for Countywide AB 939 Implementation Fee (1686 : Implementation Fee Countywide Household Hazardous Waste
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Annual Adoption of the City's Investment Policy Per California Code
Section 53646(a).
Meeting Date: May 21, 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
Review and re-adopt the City's Investment Policy and affirm that the policy is consistent
with the City's investment goals of safety, liquidity, and yield.
BACKGROUND
Per California Code Section 53646(a), the City Administrator shall annually render to
the City Council a statement of investment policy (attached), which shall be considered
by the Council at a public meeting to ensure its consistency with respect to the overall
objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Council last reviewed the policy in May 2017.
Per the City’s Investment Policy, temporarily idle or surplus funds of the City shall be
invested in accordance with principles of sound treasury management. The three basic
objectives of Gilroy's Investment Program are, in order of priority, (1) safety of invested
funds, (2) maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow needs of the City; and (3)
attainment of the maximum yield possible consistent with the first two objectives.
The City's investment portfolio is structured to provide that sufficient funds from
investments are available every month to meet the City's anticipated cash needs.
Subject to the safety provisions outlined above, the choice in investment instruments
6.H
Packet Pg. 127
and maturities is based upon an analysis of anticipated cash needs, existing and
anticipated revenues, interest rate trends, and specific market opportunities. The
maximum maturity for investment instruments is five years from the date of purchase.
The City’s current investment strategy is conservative and passive as the City Treasurer
primarily invests the City’s idle cash in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which
is a program offered to local agencies to participate in a major portfolio managed by the
California State Controller with total assets of $21.1 billion. All securities purchased by
the pool are in compliance with Government Code Section 16430 and 14680.4.
ANALYSIS
At March 31, 2018, the City’s portfolio market value was $128,588,796.40 of which
$127,539,055.15 was held in LAIF with the remaining amount located in the City’s
passbook/checking account. The most recent investment report is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact associated with re-adopting the City’s Investment Policy.
Attachments:
1. Investment Report 3-31-18
2. City Investment Policy 2018
6.H
Packet Pg. 128
6.H.a
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.a
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 131Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 132Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 133Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 134Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 135Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 136Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.aPacket Pg. 137Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
6.H.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Investment Report 3-31-18 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 1 -
INVESTMENT POLICY
FOR
CITY OF GILROY
Revised: May 20178
I. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
Temporarily idle or surplus funds of the City of Gilroy shall be invested in accordance with
principles of sound treasury management and in accordance with the provisions of
California Government Code Sections 53600, et seq., the Municipal Code, guidelines
established by the California Municipal Treasurer's Association and the California Society
of Municipal Finance Officers, and this Investment Policy ("Policy").
A. Overall Risk Profile
The three basic objectives of Gilroy's Investment Program are, in order of priority:
1. Safety of invested funds;
2. Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet cash flow needs of the City; and
3. Attainment of the maximum yield possible consistent with the first two objectives.
The achievement of these objectives shall be accomplished in the manner described
below:
1. Safety of Invested Funds
The City shall ensure the safety of its invested idle funds by limiting credit and
interest rate risks. Credit risk is the risk of loss due to the failure of the security
issuer or backer. Interest rate risk is the risk that the market value portfolio
securities will fall due to an increase in general interest rates.
a. Credit risk will be mitigated by:
i. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities as outlined in this
policy;
ii. By prequalifying the financial institutions with which it will do business; and
iii. By diversifying the investment portfolio so that the failure of any one issuer
or backer will not place an undue financial burden on the City.
b. Interest rate risk will be mitigated by:
i. Maintaining adequate sums in 30 day or less funds.
ii. Structuring the City's portfolio so that securities mature to meet the City's
cash requirements for ongoing operations, thereby avoiding the need to sell
securities on the open market prior to their maturation to meet those specific
needs; and
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 2 -
iii. Investing primarily in shorter term securities (five years or less).
c. The physical security or safekeeping of the City's investments is also an
important element of safety. Detailed safekeeping requirements are defined in
Section III of this Policy.
2. Liquidity
The City’s investment portfolio shall be structured in a manner which strives to
achieve that securities mature at the same time as cash is needed to meet anticipated
demands (static liquidity). Additionally, since all possible cash demands cannot be
anticipated, the portfolio should consist largely of securities with active secondary or
resale markets (dynamic liquidity). Funds equal to 20% of the total annual
expenditure budget less any capital expenditures for which bond proceeds are
available, less internal service fund charges and less Trust and Agency fund
expenditures, as first adopted for each fiscal year, shall be invested in the California
State LAIF or other 30 day or less securities for call requirements. However, this
provision shall not require the sale of any investment due solely to the adoption of a
new budget, or amendment to a budget, which would have the effect of increasing
the dollar amount needed to maintain this 20% requirement in 30 day or less funds.
At such time that the 30 day or less funds falls below 20% of the annual expenditure
budget, the City Treasurer, within 30 days, will notify the Investment Committee
with a proposed action plan. The City Council will be subsequently notified of the
action taken. The specific percentage mix of different investment instruments and
maturities is described in Section II of this Policy.
3. Yield
Yield on the City's investment portfolio is of secondary importance compared to the
safety and liquidity objectives described above. Investments are limited to relatively
low risk securities in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk being
assumed. While it may occasionally be necessary or strategically prudent of the City
to sell a security prior to maturity to either meet unanticipated cash needs or to
restructure the portfolio, this Policy specifically prohibits trading securities for the
sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates.
B. Time Frame for Investment Decisions
The City's investment portfolio shall be structured to provide that sufficient funds from
investments are available every month to meet the City's anticipated cash needs. Subject
to the safety provisions outlined above, the choice in investment instruments and
maturities shall be based upon an analysis of anticipated cash needs, existing and
anticipated revenues, interest rate trends, and specific market opportunities. No
investment should have a maturity of more than five (5) years from its date of purchase
without receiving City Council approval within the prior 90 days.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 3 -
C. Definition of Idle or Surplus Funds
Idle or surplus funds for the purpose of this Policy are all City funds which are available
for investment at any one time, including the estimated checking account float,
excepting those minimum balances required by the City's banks to compensate them for
the cost of banking services. This Policy also applies to the idle or surplus funds
included in the general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, capital projects
funds, enterprise funds, internal service funds, trust/agency funds and of other entities
for which the City of Gilroy personnel provide financial management services.
D. Applicability of Policy
This policy does not apply to:
1. The City's Deferred Compensation Plan, the investments in which are directed by the
participating employees through a Deferred Compensation Committee; and
2. Monies held by a trustee or fiscal agent and pledged to the payment or security of
bonds or other indebtedness, or obligations under agreements, of a local agency, or
certificates of participation in such bonds, indebtedness or agreements, the
investment of which may be in accordance with the statutory provisions governing
the issuance of those bonds, indebtedness or agreements, or to the extent not
inconsistent therewith, or if there are no specific statutory provisions, in accordance
with the ordinance, resolution, indenture or agreement of the local agency providing
for the issuance.
E. Benchmark and Performance Standards
1. The City's investment strategy is passive. Given this strategy, the portfolio is
expected to meet or exceed the six (6) month treasury bill.
2. The investment portfolio shall be designed with the objective of obtaining a rate of
return commensurate with risk constraints and cash flow needs.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 4 -
II. INVESTMENTS
This section of the Investment Policy identifies policies, types of investments, and related
matters pertaining to instruments in which the City will invest its idle funds.
A. Investment Standards
The City of Gilroy operates its temporary pooled idle cash investments under the
Prudent Man Rule, California Probate Code Section 16040(b) 1, the Prudent Investor
Standard, California Government Code, Section 53600.3 2, and with additional guidance
from the provisions of the Uniform Prudent Investor Act, California Probate Code
Section 16045, et seq 3. This affords the City a broad spectrum of investment
opportunities as long as the investment is deemed prudent and is allowable under current
legislation of the State of California (Government Code Section 53600, et seq).
B. Eligible Securities
Subject to the Prudent Man Rule, the Prudent Investor Standard and other applicable
laws and regulations, this policy permits investment in the following:
Insured Certificates of Deposit (CD's) of California banks and/or savings and loan
associations, and/or savings with a Superior or Excellent ranking of 165 or more as
provided by IDC Financial Publishing Inc. or similar rating publication) which mature in
five (5) years or less, provided that the City's investments shall not exceed Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) per institution. If the investment exceeds the
insured $250,000.00, the funds are to be collateralized at 110% of the deposit in
government securities or 150% in mortgages. (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
1The Prudent Man Rule states, in essence, that "in investing . . . property for the benefit of another, a trustee
shall exercise the judgment and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, which men of prudence, discretion,
and intelligence exercise in the management of their own affairs . . ."
2Governing bodies of local agencies (e.g., a City Council) or persons authorized to make investment
decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore
fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging,
selling, and managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the
circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated
needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in
the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity
needs of the agency. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part to an
overall strategy, a trustee is authorized to acquire investments as authorized by law.
3The standard of care for trustees investing and managing trust assets is the Prudent Investor Standard and
takes into consideration the purposes, terms, distribution requirements and other circumstances of the trust, and in
satisfying this standard, the trustee is required to exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution in light of the facts and
circumstances existing at the time of a trustee's decision or action.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 5 -
Local Agency Investment Fund (State Pool) Demand Deposits
Securities of the U.S. Government, or its agencies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit placed with federal and state savings and loan
associations and federal and state chartered banks with an office in the State of
California. (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
Bankers Acceptances (limited to 15% of the portfolio)
Commercial paper (limited to 10% of the portfolio)
Passbook Savings or Money Market Demand Deposits
Securities or bonds purchased under a prior investment policy, which may or may
not meet the standards of this policy. (Such securities or bonds may be held or sold
under this Policy but additional purchases shall not be made.)
Money Market Mutual Fund (with $1.00 net asset value and which invests only in
instruments allowed under Government Code Section 53600, et seq.) - (limited to
5% of the portfolio)
C. Investments Deemed Not Appropriate at this Time
The City of Gilroy Investment Policy does not permit investment in the following
instruments or securities:
Corporate bonds or stocks
Repurchase agreements or reverse repurchase agreements
Interest only or principal only strips
Certificates of Deposit issued by institutions not operating within California
Inverse floaters and range notes
Financial futures or financial option contracts
Securities lending or leveraging any portion of the portfolio
D. Collateralization Requirements
Uninsured Time Deposits with banks and savings and loans shall be collateralized in the
manner prescribed by law for depositories accepting municipal investment funds.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 6 -
E. Preformatted Wire Transfers
Wherever possible, the City will use preformatted wire transfers to restrict the transfer of
funds to preauthorized accounts only. When transferring funds to an account not
previously approved, the bank is required to call back a second employee for
confirmation that the transfer is authorized.
F. Qualification of Brokers, Dealers and Financial Institutions
The City Treasurer shall investigate brokers and dealers who wish to do business with
the City to determine if they are adequately capitalized, have any pending legal actions
against the firm or the individual broker, and that they market securities appropriate to
the City's needs.
The City shall annually send a copy of the current edition of the Policy to all institutions
and broker/dealers which are approved to handle City of Gilroy investments. Receipt of
the Policy, including confirmation that it has been received by persons handling the
City's accounts, shall be acknowledged in writing within thirty (30) days.
G. Diversification
The portfolio should consist of a prudent mix of various types of securities, issues and
maturities.
H. Confirmation
Receipts for confirmation of purchase or sale of authorized securities should be received
by the City Treasurer within five (5) days and include the following information: trade
date, par value, rate, price, yield, settlement date, description of securities purchased,
agency's name, net amount due, third party custodial information. These are minimum
information requirements.
I. Internal Controls
Investment duties shall be separated by having at least three persons perform the
following functions for any particular investment: the recordation of investments and
disbursements, confirmation receipts, the preparation of Treasurer's reports, wire
transfers, bank reconciliations and treasury reconciliations. An independent analysis by
the external auditor shall be conducted annually to screen internal control, account
activity, including verification of all securities, and compliance with policies and
procedures.
J. Interest Earnings
All interest earned on investments authorized by this Policy shall be allocated quarterly
to all City funds based on the positive cash balances in each fund as a percentage of the
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 7 -
entire pooled portfolio. The interest allocated to those funds not legally required to have
interest allocated shall be transferred to Fund 400, Capital Projects Fund.
III. SAFEKEEPING OF SECURITIES
A. Safekeeping Agreement
The City shall contract with a bank or banks with federally insured deposits for the
safekeeping services through a third party custodial agreement, (California Government
Code Section 53601)4 which includes delivery versus payment provisions, for securities
which are owned by the City as part of its investment portfolio.
B. Handling of City-Owned Securities and Time Deposit Collateral
All securities owned by the City shall be held by the City or by its third party custodian,
except the collateral for time deposits in banks, savings banks, and savings and loan
associations. The collateral for time deposits in banks and savings and loans shall be
held in a trust account in the City of Gilroy's name. Dealers or brokers shall not hold
any securities for the City. A broker is not an approved depository under California
Government Code Section 53630 5 and Section 53608 6
C. Security Transfers
The authorization to release City's securities will be telephoned to the appropriate
depository or custodian by a Finance Department member other than the person who
initiated the transaction. A written confirmation outlining the details for the transaction
and confirming the telephone instructions will be sent to the bank within five (5)
working days. A confirming notice documenting the transaction will be sent by the
bank to the City within five (5) working days of the transaction.
4Section 53601. Authorized Investments, circumstances. A local agency purchasing or obtaining any
security . . . shall require delivery of the securities to the local agency . . . by book entry, physical delivery or by
third party custodial agreement.
5Section 53630(c) allows state or national banks, state or federal savings banks or savings and loan
associations, state or federal credit unions and federally insured industrial loan companies as approved depositories.
6Section 53608. Deposit of securities; delegation of authority. The legislative body of a local agency may
deposit for safekeeping with a federal or state association, a trust company or a state or national bank located within
this state or with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or any branch thereof within this state, or with any
Federal Reserve Bank or with any state or national bank located in any city designated as a reserve city by the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the bonds, notes, bills, debentures, obligations, certificates or
indebtedness, warrants, or other evidences of indebtedness in which the money of the local agency is invested
pursuant to this article or pursuant to other legislative authority. The local agency shall take from such financial
institution a receipt for securities so deposited. The authority of the legislative body to deposit for safekeeping may
be delegated by the legislative body to the treasurer of the local agency; the treasurer shall not be responsible for
securities delivered to and receipted for by a financial institution until they are withdrawn from the financial
institution by the treasurer.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 8 -
D. Verification of Security
Securities held by an agent of depository as collateral securing time deposits will be
verified in writing during the year by the City's independent auditors as part of the City's
annual independent audit. The City's independent auditors confirm the collateral
directly with the bank holding that collateral. Those securities held by that depository or
custodian as collateral are subject to audit by the bank's auditors.
IV. STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY
This section of the Policy defines the overall structure of the investment management
program.
A. Responsibilities of the Finance Department
The Finance Department, through its officers and representatives, charged with
responsibility for maintaining custody of all public funds and securities belonging to or
under the control of the City and for the deposit and investment of those funds in
accordance with principles of sound treasury management and in accordance with
applicable laws and ordinances.
B. Responsibilities and Ethics of the City Treasurer
1. Delegation of Authority
The authority of the City Council to invest or to reinvest funds, or to sell or
exchange securities so purchased, may be delegated for a one-year period to the City
Treasurer, who shall thereafter assume full responsibility for those transactions until
the delegation is revoked or expires and shall make quarterly reports of those
transactions to the City Council. (California Government Code Section 53607).
Subject to review, the City Council may renew the delegation of authority each year.
2. Responsibilities
The City Treasurer is appointed by the City Administrator and is subject to his
direction and supervision. The City Treasurer is charged with the responsibility for
the purchase, sale, custody and investment of City funds, and the development of
procedures to implement this Investment Policy. In fulfilling his responsibilities, the
City Treasurer is subject to the Prudent Investor Standard and shall render reports
regarding compliance with the Investment Policy. The City Treasurer is further
responsible for the duties and subject to the powers imposed by and applicable to
City Treasurers under the general laws of the State of California.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 9 -
3. Ethical Conduct
The City Treasurer will demonstrate integrity in all public and personal
relationships, protect the public trust, and seek no favor or accept any personal gain
which would influence or appear to influence the conduct of the office of Treasurer.
C. Responsibilities of the City Administrator
The City Administrator is responsible for directing and supervising the City Treasurer.
He is responsible further to keep the City Council fully advised as to the financial
condition of the City and its compliance with this Policy.
D. Responsibilities of the City Council
The City Council shall consider and annually adopt a written investment policy. As
provided in that policy, the Council shall receive and review quarterly investment
reports and may annually delegate investment authority to the City Treasurer pursuant to
California Government Code Section 53607.
E. Responsibilities of the Investment Committee
There shall be an Investment Committee consisting of the City Administrator, City
Treasurer/Finance Director, and Assistant Finance Director. The committee shall meet
quarterly to discuss cash flow requirements, monthly and quarterly investment reports,
investment strategy, investment and banking procedures, significant investment related
work projects being undertaken in each department which will affect the cash flow
management of the City Treasurer and to review compliance with the investment
policies adopted by the City Council. This will require timely reports from the
department heads to the City Treasurer concerning significant future cash flow
requirements.
V. REPORTING
The City Treasurer shall prepare a quarterly investment report, including a succinct
management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment
portfolio and transactions made over the past quarter by month. This management summary
will be prepared in a manner which will allow the City Administrator and City Council to
ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period are in conformance with
the City's Investment Policy.
The quarterly investment report will include the following:
A. A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting quarter showing the:
1. type of investment
2. institution
3. date of maturity
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
- 10 -
4. amount of deposit or cost of the security
5. rate of return
B. Unrealized gain or loss resulting from appreciation or depreciation by listing the cost
and market value of securities over one year in duration.
C. Average yield of return on the City's investments.
D. Maturity aging for the investments.
E. Compliance of the investment portfolio with the Investment Policy.
F. A statement denoting the ability of the City to meet expenditure requirements for the
next six months.
VI. REVIEW OF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
A. Statement of Policy
As set forth in California Code Section 53646(a), the City Administrator shall annually
render to the City Council a statement of investment policy, which shall be considered
by the Council at a public meeting.
B. Policy Review
This Investment Policy shall be reviewed annually by the City Council at a public
meeting in accordance with state law to ensure its consistency with respect to the overall
objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield. Proposed amendments to the Policy shall be
prepared by the City Treasurer and after review by the Investment Committee shall be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration at a public meeting.
VII. AUTHORITY
This Policy was duly adopted by authority of the City Council of the City of Gilroy on the
1st day of July, 2015.
6.H.b
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: City Investment Policy 2018 (1678 : Annual Adoption of City's Investment Policy)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Authorizing
Officers Who May Submit Applications and Conduct Financial
Transactions with the California Governor's Office of Emergency
Services on Behalf of the City of Gilroy
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Denise King
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 authorizing
officers of the City of Gilroy who may submit applications and conduct financial
transactions with the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services on
behalf of the City of Gilroy.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2016 the City of Gilroy City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-57
naming which City officers of the City of Gilroy may conduct financial transactions on
behalf of the City. Recently, OES informed the City’s resolution needs to contain
specific verbiage in order for OES to accept the City’s current and future claims for
reimbursement, in the event of a disaster or incidents. OES suggests for the City to
have a updated resolution on file for 3 years. It is good practice to have the resolution
on file in case of a disaster so the City can submit reimbursement claims.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
6.I
Packet Pg. 149
Following adoption of the resolution the City will be eligible for reimbursement in the
future.
Attachments:
1. Reso. OES Application
6.I
Packet Pg. 150
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
AUTHORIZING OFFICERS WHO MAY SUBMIT APPLICATION AND
CONDUCT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF GILROY
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy wishes to name officers who may conduct financial
transactions and apply for financial assistance on behalf of the City of Gilroy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy that
the following officers of the City of Gilroy holding the titles specified herein:
Gabriel A Gonzalez, City Administrator
Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
is each hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City of Gilroy, a public entity
established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it with the California
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial
assistance under Public Law 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Emergency
Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance
Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Gilroy, a public entity established under
the laws of the State of California, hereby authorizes its agents to provide the Governor’s Office of
Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and
agreements required.
This is a universal Resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters up to three (3)
years following the date of approval below.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY this
21st day of May, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
6.I.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Reso. OES Application (1701 : OES Resolution)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.I.a
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Reso. OES Application (1701 : OES Resolution)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment With Harris & Associates in the
Amount of $155,000 for On-Call Engineering and City Surveyor
Services
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Jorge Duran
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 Harris & Associates for continued on -
call engineering and City surveyor services, and approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $155,000.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Public Works Department is responsible for reviewing all development
projects for conformance with City Standards, state and federal laws, and sound
engineering design principles. This includes reviewing lot-line adjustments, records of
survey, parcel maps, tentative maps, final maps, site improvement design, grading
plans, improvement plans, and hydraulic calculations. The City is required to have a
designated City Surveyor that signs all maps as required by the Subdivision Map Act.
As a cost saving measure, this function has been served by an on-call contract
consultant to manage peak workloads.
DISCUSSION
7.A
Packet Pg. 153
The original consultant RFP allowed for a 3-year term through June 29, 2018.
Development activity has significantly increased and staff expects this increased activity
to continue through Fiscal Year 2019. This amended agreement allows for Harris &
Associates to continue providing surveying services at an increased level beyond June
29, 2018. Staff requests the approval of this amended agreement to increase the
agreement amount by $155,000 and to extend the contract term through May 20, 2019.
Table A – Contract History
Contract Item Contract Term Authorized
Amount
Accumulated
Total
Original Contract July 2, 2015 – June 29, 2018 $300,000 $300,000
First Amendment June 29, 2018 – May 20, 2019 $155,000 $455,000
Table B – Staff Allocation and Hours Per Week
Job
Category/Position
Responsibility/Assignment Hours per
week/Hourly
Rate
Associate Engineer/ Storm Water Compliance Program 8 / $130
Senior Plan
Examiner
Office surveyor map reviews, map closure
calculations, title report review, and recorded
documents review.
8 / $160
Acting City Surveyor Acting City Surveyor 6 / $210
FISCAL IMPACT
Services are provided on an as-needed basis. The additional cost for this amendment,
up to the $155,000, will be covered by developer fees.
Attachments:
1. Exh D Payment Schedule
2. 1st Amend Agrmt Harris Associates_4-26-18
7.A
Packet Pg. 154
HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE:
Applicable to
“On-Call Engineering Plan Review & On-Call City Surveyor Services”
for the City of Gilroy
Effective July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019
ENGINEERING SERVICES HOURLY RATE
Project Directors and Program Managers $200-250
Senior Project Managers 175-220
Project Managers 160-200
Project Engineers 125-170
Technicians 100-150
Administration 75-100
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT HOURLY RATE
Construction Managers $135-220
Assistant Construction Managers 135-175
Inspectors (prevailing wage rate)* 135-165
Inspectors (non-prevailing wage rate) 115-155
Administration 75-100
Notes: Unless otherwise indicated in the cost proposal, our hourly rates include most direct costs
such as travel, equipment, vehicles, computers, communications and reproduction (except large
quantities such as construction documents for bidding purposes).
*Inspectors are subject to the Prevailing Wage Rates established by the California Department of
Industrial Relations while performing field duties on publicly funded projects.
Subconsultant and vendor charges are subject to a 10% markup.
Key Staff Hourly
Rate
Patrick Dobbins, Program Manager $240
Frank Lopez, Senior Project Manager $220
John Fair, Senior Project Manager $210
Chris Elias, Project Analyst $180
Diana Garrett, Project Manager $165
Samantha Cho, Design Engineer $130
Robert Williamson, Senior Plan Examiner $160
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Exh D Payment Schedule (1637 : Contract Amendment for On-Call City Surveyor Harris & Associates)
-1- 4845-8215-5540v1
MDOLINGER\04706083
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation (“City”), and Harris & Associates,
entered into that certain agreement entitled Consulting Services, effective on July 2, 2015, hereinafter
referred to as “Original Agreement”; and
WHEREAS, City and Harris & Associates have determined it is in their mutual interest to
amend certain terms of the Original Agreement including:
A. Increase Consideration for Services, per this Amendment, by One Hundred Fifty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($155,000) adding to the initial contract amount of Three Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($300,000) for a total Contract amount of Four Hundred Fifty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($455,000); and
B. Modify Payment Schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE PARTIES AGREE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. Article 1, Term of Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:
“This Agreement will become effective on 5/21/2018 and will continue in effect through
5/20/219 unless terminated in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of this agreement.
2. Article 4, Section A (Consideration) of Original Agreement shall be amended to read as
follows:
“In consideration for the services to be performed by CONSULTANT, CITY agrees to pay
CONSULTANT the amounts set forth in Exhibit “D” (“Payment Schedule’). In no event
however shall the total compensation paid to CONSULTANT exceed $455,000 (Four Hundred
Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars).
3. This Amendment shall be effective on May 21, 2018.
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.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the
dates set forth besides their signatures below.
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 1st Amend Agrmt Harris Associates_4-26-18 (1637 : Contract Amendment for On-Call City Surveyor Harris & Associates)
-2- 4845-8215-5540v1
MDOLINGER\04706083
CITY OF GILROY HARRIS & ASSOCIATES
By: By:
[signature] [signature]
Gabriel A. Gonzalez Patrick Dobbins
[employee name] [name]
City Administrator Engineering Director
[title/department] [title]
Date: Date:
Approved as to Form ATTEST:
City Attorney City Clerk
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 1st Amend Agrmt Harris Associates_4-26-18 (1637 : Contract Amendment for On-Call City Surveyor Harris & Associates)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of the Community Development Block Grant and Housing
Trust Fund Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Jim Carney
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Housing Trust Fund (HTF).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is asked to approve the submittal of the draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-
2019 Annual Action Plan (AAP) for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
and the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) revenue. The FY 2018-2019 Federal CDBG budget
has been approved for FY 2018-2019. Upon HUD’s notice of May 1, 2018, Gilroy has
been allocated $496,369 for FY 2018-2019, an increase of $36,005 over the FY 2017-
2018 CDBG amount. Therefore, the AAP has been proportionately revised based on
the level of CDBG funds allocated for this next year starting July 1, 2018.
As a requirement of receiving CDBG funds from HUD, the City developed (in 2015) the
five-year Consolidated Plan. The 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan spans Fiscal Years
2015-2016 to 2019-2020. The City Council at its February 2, 2015 meeting approved a
8.A
Packet Pg. 158
set of goals and priorities to include in the development of the Consolidated Plan. FY
2018-2019 represents year four of the Consolidated Plan currently in effect.
In conjunction with the Consolidated Plan, the City must also develop the AAP based on
the City’s goals to program the use of federal dollars over a single fiscal year. The City
also elected to include the use of its local Housing Trust Fund (HTF) dollars in its AAP.
Pursuant to the City’s two-year budget cycle, the AAP represents the second year of
funding renewals for public service agencies and allocations for housing rehabilitation,
public facilities improvements and program administration.
On April 16, 2018, the Council conducted a public hearing and approved FY 2018 -2019
(second year) CDBG and HTF funding awards for twelve non-profit organizations to
provide low income public services which will be adjusted based upon the final CDBG
allocation for FY 2018-2019. The Community Neighborhood Revitalization Committee
(CNRC) met on May 16, 2018 to recommend the allocation of the additional $36,005 of
CDBG funds.
BACKGROUND
The Consolidated Plan describes the City’s affordable housing and non -housing
community development needs, resources and priorities for the period of July 1,
2015 to June 30, 2020. Through an extensive public outreach process and
evaluation of needs in the community, twenty-two goals were identified to be
addressed within the five-year period of the Consolidated Plan.
The CDBG allocation for FY 2018-2019 is $496,369 and an additional $36,000 is
expected in CDBG program income. The program income amount comes from various
sources such as past housing rehabilitation loan repayments; repayment of loans
provided to nonprofits and rent receipts from the Cherry Blossom Apartments. In
alignment with the City Council approved priorities and ongoing community needs, the
proposed allocation of CDBG funds is as follows:
$74,455 for public services,
$35,000 for economic development activities in the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA)
$99,274 for program administration,
$8,000 for code enforcement,
$120,000 for the Home Access Program
Approximately $167,640 for capital projects and/or housing rehabilitation in the
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.
8.A
Packet Pg. 159
Further, in alignment with the Council approved two-year budget, the City expects to
expend $168,000 in HTF funds for housing related public services. These services
include fair housing assistance, tenant-landlord counseling and mediation, homeless
day care and prevention services, battered women’s shelter and emergency services for
persons with disabilities.
The draft AAP was released for the HUD-mandated 30-day public comment period on
April 6, 2018. Any comments received by May 6, 2018 will be incorporated into the final
draft submitted to HUD for its review. No comments have been received to date.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council can direct staff to submit the AAP to support CDBG and HTF funds
to address persistent needs in Gilroy regarding homelessness, domestic violence,
youth gangs, persons with physical disabilities, landlord-tenant disputes, housing
rehabilitation, public facilities and public infrastructure. This annual revenue has
provided a level of assistance that is not funded in any other way. Over the years the
City of Gilroy has utilized its CDBG and HTF funds in a manner that has improved
lives and living conditions for the community’s low and very low income working
families, youth and seniors. Therefore, this action is recommended.
2. Should the Council could vote not to submit the CDBG FY 2018-2019 AAP to HUD
for approval, the annual estimated $496,369 CDBG allocation to Gilroy would not be
made available for the City’s dozen of local non-profit agencies that provide low
income public services and other planned housing rehabilitation and public facilities
activities. Consequently, HUD would re-deploy those CDBG funds to other
communities to address their low and very low income needs. As such, this action
is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Approving the submittal of the Annual Action Plan does not impact to the City’s General
Fund as these funds are allocated by the Federal Government for specific CDBG
purposes. The local HTF revenue is received by the repayment of housing loans,
interest and net rent revenue from the City-owned Cherry Blossom building.
NEXT STEPS
Upon Council approval, staff will submit the draft AAP to HUD for review and approval.
HUD’s approval of the AAP is expected within forty-five days. Staff will begin to prepare
contracts and develop plans for implementation of CDBG and HTF funded programs
and projects for the coming fiscal year.
Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee: In the process for
developing the FY 2018-2019 AAP, the Community Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee (CNRC) met on March 21, 2018 to review first year- performances and
second-year funding renewals regarding the CDBG and HTF funded public service
8.A
Packet Pg. 160
providing non-profit agencies. After hearing public comments from community
members, the CNRC voted to recommend to the City Council second year renewed
funding for all twelve agencies. Further, the CNRC met on May 16, 2018 to consider
recommendations to the Council for allocations on the increased CDBG funds available
for FY 2018-2019.
The increased CDBG FY 18-19 funding allocation represents $36,005 above the FY
2017-2018 allocation. Of the $36,005 increase, 20% ($7,201) is allocated for program
administration.
In addition, with the increase of CDBG funds for next year, the CNRC recommended
allocating the remaining $28,804 to non-profit public services and City programs. The
CNRC considered how to allocate the $5,401 that is available for funding under the 15%
CDBG public services spending cap. After hearing from representatives in attendance
at the meeting from Live Oak Adult Day Services and Gilroy Compassion Center, who
each asked for a share of the additional $5,401 of public services funds, the CNRC
voted 5-0 to recommend that Council allocate $2,700.50 to each of the two non-profit
agencies that requested additional funding.
With $23,403 of new FY 2018-2019 CDBG funds remaining to be allocated, the CNRC
voted to recommend that Council direct staff to issue a short Request for Proposals
(RFP) to be issued after submittal of the FY 2018-2019 AAP to HUD to allow non-
profits, public agencies and private companies to submit proposals for to fund additional
eligible CDBG projects and activities. The responses to the RFP would then be
submitted to the CNRC for selecting the organization that would receive a
recommendation of the $23,403 CDBG funds at their meeting scheduled for July 16,
2018. The CDBG CNRC recommendations for those funds would be submitted to the
Council for final approval.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
The Council Public Hearing to consider the FY 2018 -2019 AAP submittal to HUD was
published in the Gilroy Dispatch on April 6, 2018. The Spanish version of that Notice of
Public Hearing was posted at the Gilroy City Hall and City Library as well. On May 7,
2018, the Council continued the Public Hearing to May 21, 2018 in order to allow the
CDRC to consider on May 16, 2018 recommendation for allocation of the additional
$36,005 CDBG funds for FY 2018-2019.
Attachments:
1. 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan
8.A
Packet Pg. 161
Annual Action Plan
2018
1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan
(For Period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019)
Community Development Block Grant
Application for federal funds under the Department of Housing & Urban
Development formula grant programs
City of Gilroy
Housing and Community Development
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
Contact (408)846-0290
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Executive Summary
AP -05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
Annually, HUD allocates a series of grants to local jurisdictions for community
development activities. As a requirement to receive these entitlement grants, Title I of
the National Affordable Housing Act mandates that jurisdictions prepare a five -year
Consolidated Plan that identifies local community development needs and sets forth a
strategy to address these needs. The Consolidated Plan must address both affordable
housing and non-housing related community development needs. The needs are
targeted to low income persons or low-income areas.
Also required are Annual Action Plans for each of the five years included in the five-year
Consolidated Plan. Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (HUD Program Year 2017) represents
the fourth year of the current 2015-2020 five-year Consolidated Plan. This Annual
Action Plan will address how the City of Gilroy plans to address the strategies listed in
the Consolidated Plan during Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019).
2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan
This could be a restatement of items or a table listed elsewhere in the plan or a reference to
another location. It may also contain any essential items from the housing and homeless needs
assessment, the housing market analysis or the strategic plan.
HUD has established a set of outcomes and objectives entitlement jurisdictions need to
address. The outcomes and objectives are noted within each of the twenty-two Goals
included in the Strategic Plan (SP-45) section of the Consolidated Plan. In summary,
they are as follows:
Outcomes: Availability/Accessibility; Affordability; Sustainability
Objectives: Create suitable living environments; Provide Decent Affordable
Housing; Create Economic Opportunities
The outcomes and objectives are noted within each of the twenty-two Goals included in
the Strategic Plan (SP-45) section of the Consolidated Plan. In Fiscal Year 2018-2019,
the City will address twenty of the twenty-two goals noted in the Consolidated Plan.
Details on which goals the City will address as well as how the City plans to do so are
noted in Section AP-20 “Annual Goals and Objectives” of this Annual Action Plan.
3. Evaluation of past performance
This is an evaluation of past performance that helped lead the grantee to choose its goals or
projects.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
A meaningful evaluation of past performance is integral to determine what has been
accomplished and what work is necessary to address the myriad of needs in the
community. This evaluation included a review of past Consolidated Plans and Annual
Action Plans as well as the successes achieved through the Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy. Through this evaluation, the City was able to compare the
needs identified through this Consolidated Plan and compare them to the activities that
have taken place in the past to determine if those activities are still necessary. Priority
needs and goals were then formulated to meet these needs with an eye to what has
been successful in the past and what is necessary in the future.
The City will report, in detail, on its performance in the Fiscal Year 2018-2019
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) due to HUD in
September 2018. However, the City of Gilroy continues to meet the requirements set
forth in the HUD regulations that govern the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. These include thorough programmatic and financial oversight of
funded projects; appropriate budgeting and expenditure of funds based on HUD
financial requirements; and, insuring the community continues to receive the necessary
services identified through the development of the five-year Consolidated Plan.
4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process
Summary from citizen participation section of plan
Public participation plays a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan. As
a precursor to the development of the Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (FY 18-19) Annual Action
Plans, on January 9, 2017 the City Council approved a series of funding priorities that
prioritized uses of expected funding. This meeting was properly noticed and members of
the public were given opportunities to provide input. The final priorities are incorporated
into the proposed FY 18-19 Annual Action Plan.
Also, prior to the award of public service and housing rehabilitation funds the
Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (CNRC) met twice to review
and discuss the applications submitted by non-profit agencies wishing to receive
funding. On March 15, 2017, they conducted interviews of each applicant. The CNRC
again met on March 29, 2017 to rate and rank each applicant and determine a level of
funding to propose for award by the City Council. These recommendations were
forwarded to the City Council for final approval of the first of a two-year funding cycle at
its May 15, 2017 meeting. All meetings of the CNRC were properly noticed and opened
to the public.
In addition for the second year of the CDBG funding cycle – FY 2018-2019, the
Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (CNRC) met on March 21,
2018 to review and discuss the applications submitted by non-profit agencies wishing to
receive funding. After hearing comments from agency representatives and City staff,
the CNRC voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council to fund all twelve non -
profit public service and housing rehabilitation non-profit agencies for a second-year
cycle. And, on May 16, 2018, the CNRC met to review and recommend additional
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
funding based on the HUD’s notice of an increase to the Gilroy CDBG grant for FY
2018-2019, in the amount of $36,005.
All public hearings are published in the Gilroy Dispatch, the local newspaper. The draft
Action Plan was made available on April 6, 2018 for review, open for comments until
May 6, 2018, on the City’s website as were public notices in English and Spanish. A
hard copy of the draft Action Plan and notices was made available at the Community
Development/Planning Counter and at the Gilroy Public Library. The notices were also
posted at City Hall in a location reserved for public notices. The public hearings were
broadcast on Public TV Channel 17. Notices of public comment opportunities were
emailed to the following group lists: South County Collaborative, Housing Advisory
Committee, South County Homeless Task Force, and the CNRC as well as to the
applicants for funding.
The final Annual Action Plan will include all comments that are received. A public
hearing to adopt the Action Plan will occur on May 21, 2018. Based on HUD’s
notification to the City of its FY 2018-2019 CDBG allocation, the adopted Annual Action
Plan was modified to reflect actual CDBG funding levels for FY2018-2019 in the amount
of $49,369..
5. Summary of public comments
This could be a brief narrative summary or reference an attached document from the Citizen
Participation section of the Consolidated Plan.
The City will incorporate any comments received during the 30 -day public comment
period in the final draft submitted to HUD. As of May 8, 2018, no additional comments
were received.
6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not
accepting them
The City will accept all comments or views.
7. Summary
In summary, the FY 18-19 Annual Action Plan represents year four of the five-year
Consolidated Plan. It will continue to address the priorities identified in the Consolidated
Plan. The plan was developed following a public input process and will address the
community development needs of the City of Gilroy.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b)
1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated
Plan
Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those
responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator GILROY Community Development Department
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies
Narrative (optional)
The City of Gilroy (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s Housing and
Community Development section of the Community Development Department is
responsible for the administration of HUD funded Community Development Block Grant
Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-
year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the
use of federal funds.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Kristi Abrams
Director of Community Development
(408) 846-0467
Kristi.abrams@cityofgilroy.org
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)
1. Introduction
The FY 18-19 Annual Action Plan represents the four year of the five-year Consolidated
Plan. Development of the Action Plan utilized the consultative process used for the
2015-2020 Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan). The Consolidated Plan was done in
collaboration with eight entitlement jurisdictions. These jurisdictions were:
City of Cupertino
City of Gilroy
City of Mountain View
City of Palo Alto
City of Sunnyvale
City of San José
City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Urban County
Public participation played a central role in the development of the Consolidated Plan.
The participating jurisdictions within the County launched an in -depth, collaborative
regional effort to consult with community stakeholders, elected offices, City and County
departments, and beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the
priorities and strategies contained within the five-year plan.
The participating jurisdictions, in partnership with LeSar Development Consultants
(LDC) and MIG, Inc. (MIG), facilitated a comprehensive outreach process to enhance
coordination and discuss new approaches to working with public and assisted housing
providers, legal advocates, private and governmental health agencies, mental health
service providers, and other stakeholders that utilize funding for eligible activities,
projects, and programs.
A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in
the region. Respondents were informed that participating jurisdictions were updating
their respective Consolidated Plans for federal funds that primarily serve low - and
moderate-income (LMI) residents and areas. The Regional Needs Survey polled
respondents about the level of need in their respective neighborhoods for various types
of improvements that could be addressed by entitlement funds.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
A total of 1,472 survey responses were obtained from September 19, 2014 to
November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected
via print surveys.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance
coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and
governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l))
Regional Forums
The participating jurisdictions held three regional public forums to identify housing and
community development needs and priorities for the next five years. The public forums
were conducted as part of a collaborative regional approach to help the participating
jurisdictions make data-driven, place-based investment decisions for federal funds.
Seventy-six (76) people attended the regional forums, including community members,
service providers, nonprofit representatives, and interested stakeholders.
Community Forums in Local Jurisdictions
In addition to the regional forums, several participating jurisdictions conducted public
outreach independent of the regional collaborative. The cities of San Jose and Mountain
View, and the Santa Clara Urban County, each held multiple community forums to
solicit public input on local issues, needs and priorities. The community forums were
held in tandem with the regional public forums to expand the outreach process and
gather specific place-based input. One hundred and thirty-three (133) individuals
attended the community forums, including residents, service providers, nonprofit
representatives, and interested stakeholders.
Outreach
Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly
engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries,
partners, and contacts. These stakeholders were also encouraged to promote
attendance at the public forums and to solicit responses to the Regional Needs Survey.
Stakeholder engagement included phone calls, targeted emai ls, newsletter
announcements, social media posts, and personalized requests from staff of the
Entitlement Jurisdictions. Each participating jurisdiction also promoted the regional
forums and regional survey links on their respective websites and announced the
Consolidated Plan process through electronic mailing lists. Outreach materials and the
survey links (including materials in Spanish) were emailed to over 4,000 entities,
organizations, and persons.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Approximately 1,225 printed flyers providing public no tice about the regional forums
were distributed throughout the County at libraries, recreation centers, community
meeting locations, and organizations benefiting LMI residents and areas. These flyers
were available in English and Spanish.
Print newspaper display ads also were posted in the Gilroy Dispatch (English),
Mountain View Voice (English), El Observador (Spanish), La Oferta (Spanish), Thoi Bao
(Vietnamese), Philippine News (Tagalog), World Journal (Chinese) and San Jose
Mercury News (English). In addition, an online display ad was placed in the San Jose
Mercury News to reach readers electronically.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the
needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and
families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons
at risk of homelessness.
The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of
stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County o f Santa
Clara (County). The CoC’s primary responsibilities are to coordinate large -scale
implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County.
In winter 2015, the CoC partnered with Destination: Home, a public-private partnership
committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, and released a
Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines
a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The
strategies and action steps included in the Plan were informed by members who
participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of
homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to
address the needs of homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless
individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth.
Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness.
The Plan aims to implement the following strategies: [1]
1. Disrupt systems: Develop disruptive strategies and innovative prototypes that
transform the systems related to housing homeless people.
2. Build the solution: Secure the right amount of funding needed to provide housing
and services to those who are homeless and those at risk of homelessness.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
3. Serve the person: Adopt an approach that recognizes the need for client -
centered strategies with different responses for different levels of need and
different groups, targeting resources to the specific individual or household.
Over the next five years, the Plan seeks to identify approximately 6,000 new housing
opportunities for the homeless, intending to house 2,518 homeless individuals, 718
homeless veterans, and more than 2,333 children, unaccompanied youth, and
homeless individuals living in families.
Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful
implementation components of the Plan’s action steps. A Community Plan Implementation
Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly
to evaluate progress toward the Plan’s goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish
funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness.[2]
[1] Santa Clara County CoC. “Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa
[2] Ibid.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's
area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards
for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and
develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of
HMIS
Allocating Funds, Setting Performance Standards and Evaluating Outcomes
The city is not an ESG entitlement jurisdiction.
Operating and Administrating Help Management Information System (HMIS)
The HMIS SCC project is administered by Bitfocus and has served the community since
2004. The project meets and exceeds HUD’s requirements for the implementation and
compliance of HMIS Standards. The project has a rich array of service provider
participation and is utilized to capture information and report on special programming,
such as Housing 1000, the County VTA free bus pass program, and prevention service
delivery. [1]
[1] County of Santa Clara. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER).
2014
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in
the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social
service agencies and other entities
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated
1 Agency/Group/Organization Gilroy Compassion Center
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-homeless
What section of the Plan was addressed by
Consultation?
Homelessness Strategy
Briefly describe how the
Agency/Group/Organization was consulted.
What are the anticipated outcomes of the
consultation or areas for improved
coordination?
NOTE: Additional agencies,
groups and organizations were
included in the final draft of the
Consolidated Plan and are
attached to the FY 18-19Annual
Action Plan.
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting
Not applicable
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the
Plan
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care
Regional
Continuum of Care
Council
The Continuum of Care works to alleviate
the impact of homelessness in the
community through the cooperation and
collaboration of social service providers.
This effort aligns with the Strategic Plan's
goal to address homelessness.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
City of Gilroy
Housing Element
(2015-2023)
City of Gilroy
The Housing Element outlines the City of
Gilroy goals, policies, and implementation
programs for the preservation,
conservation, improvement, and
production of housing for the 2015-2023
planning period. The Housing Element
identifies the specific actions the City will
take to address existing and future
housing needs. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plans goal to address affordable
housing issues through implementation of
the plan.
2012-2014
Comprehensive
HIV Prevention &
Care Plan
Santa Clara County
HIV Planning
Council for
Prevention and
Care
This plan provides a roadmap for the
Santa Clara County HIV Planning Council
for Prevention and Care to provide a
comprehensive and compassionate
system of HIV prevention and care
services for the County. This effort aligns
with the Strategic Plan's goal to provide
basic and supportive services to special
needs populations.
Affordable Housing
Funding Landscape
& Local Best
Cities Association
of Santa Clara
County and
Housing Trust
Silicon Valley
This report provides a comparison of the
different funding strategies available for
affordable housing in the County, and the
best practices for funding new affordable
housing. This effort aligns with the
Strategic Plan's goal to support the
development of affordable housing.
Regional Housing
Need Plan for the
San Francisco B
Association of Bay
Area Governments
This plan analyzes the total regional
housing need for Santa Clara County and
all of the Bay Area. This effort aligns with
the Strategic Plan's goal to support the
development of affordable housing.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals of each plan?
Community Plan to
End Homelessness
in Santa Clara
Destination: Home
The Community Plan to End
Homelessness in the County is a five-year
plan to guide governmental actors,
nonprofits, and other community members
as they make decisions about funding,
programs, priorities and needs. This effort
aligns with the Strategic Plan's goal to
address homelessness.
Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts
Narrative (optional)
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen
participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
A comprehensive summary of the citizen participation process utilized in the
development of the five-year Consolidated Plan and this FY 18-19 Annual Action Plan
and commensurate needs identified through the process is found in Appendix A: Citizen
Participation Summary. Below is a summary of the outreach efforts:
1. Regional and Community Forums: A total of 11 regional and community forums
took place to include a forum in the city of Gilroy. In total, the forums were
attended by 209 individuals representing a cross-sector of the community. This
effort included the distribution of 1,225 hardcopy surveys and eight multi-lingual
display ads in the local media. Regional Needs Survey: 4,847 entities were
directly engaged via email and survey links were posted on the entitlement
jurisdiction’s websites. Outreach was also made via Facebook and Twitter.
These efforts resulted in the return of 1,472 survey responses.
2. In addition, City staff presented a series of priorities for both pub lic service and
community development activities identified through the citizen participation
process to the Gilroy City Council on January 9, 2017. The public was invited to
offer comments at those meetings.
The City utilized these outreach efforts to formulate the goals it wishes to achieve over
the 5-year Consolidated Plan period to include this FY 18-19Annual Action Plan.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
1 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
One public hearing took
place at the January 9, 2017
City Council meeting to
discuss two-year priorities
for use of public service and
community development
dollars.
No comments
were received
at the public
meeting.
N/A
2 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Two public meetings took
place to discuss public
service and housing
rehabilitation funding
proposals submitted in
response to a Request for
Proposal for use of CDBG
and local Housing Trust
Fund dollars.
No comments
were
received.
N/A
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
3 Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
A public meeting took place
at the city's Community and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee (CNRC) to
discuss the draft Annual
Action Plan.
Comments
revolved
around
increasing the
numbers of
Community
Based
Development
Organization's
(CBDO) to
allow for
additional
investments
within the
Neighborhood
Revitalization
Strategy Area.
All comments
were received
and city staff will
place on a
future CNRC
agenda a
discussion on
CBDO's and the
eligible activities
such
organizations
can undertake.
4 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
A public hearing took place
at the June 5, 2017 City
Council meeting to discuss
the draft Annual Action Plan.
No comments
were
received.
N/A
5 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
A public hearing took place
at the August 7, 2017 City
Council meeting to discuss
the draft Annual Action Plan.
N/A
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
6
Public
Meeting
Non-
targeted/broad
community
On March 21, 2018 and May
16, 2018 public meetings
took place at the city's
Community and
Neighborhood Revitalization
Committee (CNRC) to
review past two years of
performance of sub
recipients, discuss the draft
Annual Action Plan
allocations, and recommend
funding levels for CDBG +
HTF activities
Public
comments
revolved
around
increasing
funding for fair
housing
counseling,
services for
persons
experiencing
homelessness
and affordable
housing.
N/A
7 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
A public hearing took place
at the April 16, 2018 City
Council meeting to discuss
the recommended CDBG
and HTF funding for the
second year of the two-year
budget cycle around public
service and housing
rehabilitation activities.
N/A
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If
applicable)
8 Public
Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
A public hearing took place
at the May 7, 2018 and May
21, 2018 City Council
meetings to discuss and
approval the draft Annual
Action Plan.
N/A
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach
Expected Resources
AP -15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2)
Introduction
The City expects to receive resources from both the federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program as well as the locally funded Housing Trust Fund. Below is a summary of the expected resources in FY 18-19. If
HUD makes any adjustments to its allocation after this Annual Action Plan is adopted, the Housing Rehabilitation –
Rebuilding Together, Silicon Valley activity will absorb the adjustments, for the non-service projects, and the Gilroy
Demonstration Garden will absorb adjustments for service projects. Any adjustments will occur after funding for
administrative activities (i.e., 20% of the CDBG allocation plus estimated program income) has been set aside.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Priority Table
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of
Funds
Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected
Amount
Available
Reminder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Description Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
CDBG public -
federal
Acquisition
Admin and
Planning
Economic
Development
Housing
Public
Improvements
Public
Services 496,369
36,000 0
496,364
532,369
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Program Source
of
Funds
Uses of
Funds
Expected Amount Available Year 4 Expected
Amount
Available
Reminder
of ConPlan
$
Narrative
Description Annual
Allocation:
$
Program
Income:
$
Prior Year
Resources:
$
Total:
$
Housing
Trust
Fund
public -
local
Housing
162,000 0 0 162,000 680,000
The city manages
a local Housing
Trust Fund. Funds
are generated
from the
repayment or
refinancing of
prior homebuyer
loans that were
made to low-
income
homebuyers.
Funds are also
generated from
city-owned
property that was
supported with
Housing Trust
Fund dollars.
Table 5 - Expected Resources – Priority Table
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a
description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
The use of local Housing Trust Fund dollars will assist the City in meeting many of the goals noted in its five -year strategic
plan. Funds will go primarily toward housing related public service programs and to assist in the administration of both
funds.
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to
address the needs identified in the plan
The city currently owns a multi-family apartment complex within the downtown area known as the Cherry Blossom
Apartments. The property includes 7 residential units (five one-bedroom units and two two-bedroom units). The City is
currently partnering with the County of Santa Clara and a local nonprofit to house two individuals in the complex. This pilot
project currently provides rental subsidies from the County and intensive case management and other support services
from the local nonprofit in order to assist the individuals in improving their health and increasing their stability. The
program will serve homeless individuals who have been involved in the criminal justice system and require the supportive
services necessary to become productive citizens of the community. The City and County will explore the potential of
expanding the program to house more individuals to include the provision of supportive services.
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Annual Goals and Objectives
AP -20 Annual Goals and Objectives - 91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e)
Goals Summary Information
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic Area Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
1 Support for
affordable
housing
development
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$200,000
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
Other: 28 Other
2 Housing
Element
implementation
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
3 Affordable
homeownership
support
2015 2019 Affordable
Housing
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic Area Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
4 Housing
rehabilitation
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$120,000
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
Homeowner Housing
Rehabilitated: 20
Household Housing Unit
5 Housing for the
homeless
2015 2019 Homeless Basic Needs
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
Housing for Homeless
added: 2 Household
Housing Unit
6 Services to the
homeless
2015 2019 Homeless Basic Needs
Supportive
Services
CDBG:
$13,500
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$20,965
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 500
Persons Assisted
7 Emergency
rental
assistance
2015 2019 Homeless Housing
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$34,465
Homelessness
Prevention: 480 Persons
Assisted
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic Area Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
8 Homeless job
training
2015 2019 Homeless Supportive
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$32,000
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 9
Persons Assisted
9 Support basic
need services
2015 2019 Homeless
Non-
Homeless
Special
Needs
Basic Needs CDBG:
$10,000
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$12,500
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 60
Persons Assisted
10 Support for
supportive
services
2015 2019 Homeless
Non-
Homeless
Special
Needs
Supportive
Services
CDBG:
$14,500
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$21,070
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 135
Persons Assisted
11 Support youth
services
2015 2019 Youth Youth
Services
CDBG:
$40,000
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 220
Persons Assisted
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic Area Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
12 Code
Enforcement
services
2015 2019 Code
Enforcement
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$13,500
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
Housing Code
Enforcement/Foreclosed
Property Care: 20
Household Housing Unit
13 Tenant-landlord
mediation
2015 2019 Housing
Services
Housing
Services
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$26,000
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 237
Persons Assisted
14 Capital
improvements
in the NRSA
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
CITY OF GILROY
NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION
STRATEGY
Infrastructure
Improvements
in the NRSA
15 Mitigate lead-
based paint
hazards
2015 2019 Lead Based
Paint
Housing
Services
16 Promote fair
housing choice
2015 2020 Fair Housing Housing
Services
Housing
Trust
Fund:
$21,000
Public service activities
other than
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit: 38
Persons Assisted
17 Fair housing
zoning
2015 2018 Fair Housing Housing
Services
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort
Order
Goal Name Start
Year
End
Year
Category Geographic Area Needs
Addressed
Funding Goal Outcome
Indicator
18 Workforce
development
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
CITY OF GILROY
NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION
STRATEGY
Economic
Development
CDBG:
$0
Housing
Trust
Fund: $0
19 Small business
development
2015 2019 Non-Housing
Community
Development
Economic
Development
20 Neighborhood
Revitalization
Strategy
2015 2019 NRSA Rehabilitation and
business façade
improvements
Table 6 – Goals Summary
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-
Annual Action Plan
2018
26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Goal Descriptions
1 Goal Name Support for affordable housing development
Goal
Description
The City will provide technical support to developers wishing to
construct or rehabilitate both affordable for-sale and rental housing
within the City. It will assist developers with meeting the
requirements of their proposal. It will also explore if any options exist
to assist with the development of affordable housing to include the
possible rehabilitation of the Cherry Blossom apartments. These
apartments are owned by the City and may provide an opportunity
to provide permanent supportive housing to chronically homeless
individuals. Lastly, the City will partner with a non-profit affordable
housing developer to facilitate the acquisition of a multi-family
project that it will rehabilitate and continue to make available to low-
income residents.
2 Goal Name Housing Element implementation
Goal
Description
The city will continue to implement the strategies set forth in the
State-approved Housing Element.
3 Goal Name Affordable homeownership support
Goal
Description
The City will continue to manage its Below Market Rate (BMR)
portfolio to insure the ongoing availability of affordable for -sale
homes. It will also assist in the sale of future BMR homes as they
become available.
4 Goal Name Housing rehabilitation
Goal
Description
The City will award a contract to Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley
for its Rebuilding Home Repair, Rehabilitation and Accessibility
Modification Program. This program will repair housing units to
attend to the immediate health and safety needs for low-income
Gilroy homeowners. The program will be open to all income-eligible
Gilroy residents; however, preference will be given to residents
living in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area. The focus of
the repairs will address urgent and critical needs, as well as minor
repairs, accessibility and mobility needs and limited rehabilitation.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
5 Goal Name Housing for the homeless
Goal
Description
The City will continue to provide permanent supportive housing to
two homeless individuals at the City-owned Cherry Blossom
Apartments. As units become vacant, the City will continue to
partner with the County in identifying other homeless individuals to
occupy the units. It will provide non-monetary support to efforts to
build permanent housing for homeless individuals in alignment with
the Housing First model of ending homelessness. It will also support
efforts to insure homeless individuals are inputted into the Clarity
Human Services HMIS database. The “Vi-SPDAT’ process connects
chronically homeless individuals with the Care Coordination system
so that they are in a position to receive permanent housing and
case management services that become available. Finally, should
the City qualify for HOME funds through its participation in the Santa
Clara County HOME Consortium, it will evaluate the potential to use
said funds for Tenant Based Rental Assistance for homeless
individuals.
6 Goal Name Services to the homeless
Goal
Description
The City will provide services that support homeless individuals with
meeting their basic needs such as clothing, food or toiletries.
7 Goal Name Emergency rental assistance
Goal
Description
The city will support efforts to provide emergency rental assistance
to either help families threatened with eviction or help homeless
families with emergency rental assistance that will allow them to
move into permanent housing.
8 Goal Name Homeless job training
Goal
Description
The city will support efforts to provide homeless individuals with job
skills that will help prepare them to identify regular employment.
9 Goal Name Support basic need services
Goal
Description
The city will continue to support services that provide basic need
services, especially to special needs clients such as seniors, the
disabled and victims of domestic violence.
10 Goal Name Support for supportive services
Goal
Description
The city will support efforts to provide supportive services to
individuals. The individuals may include special needs populations
such as the disabled, seniors and victims of domestic violence.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
11 Goal Name Support youth services
Goal
Description
The city will support services at the Gilroy Youth Center to include
educational and recreational/enrichment activities. It will also
provide funding for free swim lessons for low income youth.
12 Goal Name Code Enforcement services
Goal
Description
The city will fund housing Code Enforcement services within the
NRSA.
13 Goal Name Tenant-landlord mediation
Goal
Description
The city will support mediation efforts to address disputes between
tenants and landlords.
14 Goal Name Capital improvements in the NRSA
Goal
Description
The City will provide capital improvements to public facilities within
the NRSA. Projects can include sidewalk improvements, lighting
modifications or public safety infrastructure improvements. The City
will provide funding based on the scope and cost of the project(s) as
determined at a later date.
15 Goal Name Mitigate lead-based paint hazards
Goal
Description
The city will continue to educate the community regarding the
hazards of lead poisoning, particularly with regard to lead-based
paint hazards. It will maintain information on the dangers of lead
based paint at the Community Development calendar. It will provide
handouts to rehabilitation program clients and test for lead-based
paint as required. Finally, it will continue to implement the local Lead
Based Management Plan and update when necessary.
16 Goal Name Promote fair housing choice
Goal
Description
The City will support services that address illegal housing
discrimination. Services will include investigation of complaints,
conducting of outreach and education and litigation or conciliation
efforts to victims of illegal housing discrimination. The City will also
review recently released information to determine the steps
necessary to complete an Affirmatively Further Fair Housing report
and complete by the end of Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (HUD Program
Year 2017).
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
17 Goal Name Fair housing zoning
Goal
Description
If necessary, the City will continue to modify local zoning ordinances
for consistency with State and federal fair housing laws through
implementation of Housing Element policies and programs.
18 Goal Name Workforce development
Goal
Description
The City will support employment services within the NRSA. A
certified Community Based Development Organization will provide
such services to include job searches, resume and interview
preparations, soft skills training, financial literacy and linkages to
other resources.
19 Goal Name Small business development
Goal
Description
The City will support programs that facilitate small business
development and will support the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce
and/Gilroy Economic Development Corporation in applications for
funding and/or in providing outreach to low income residents.
20 Goal Name Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
Goal
Description
The City will continue to implement efforts noted in the HUD
approved 2013-2018 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
Table 7 – Goal Descriptions
Estimate the number of extremely low -income, low-income, and moderate-income
families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by
HOME 91.215(b):
The City will not provide affordable housing to any families within the income categories
listed.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -35 Projects – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The City will continue to fund various projects that help address the priority needs
identified in the five-year Consolidated Plan. The listed projects will require City Council
approval prior to the award and release of funds. The award amounts in the draft
document are based on current estimates of available funds. As of the May 7, 2018
City Council public hearing, HUD had not yet announced the CDBG allocation for Gilroy.
Also, HUD has advised local CDBG jurisdiction to not submit the Council FY approved
FY 18-19 Action Plan until after HUD informs the city of it FY18-19 CDBG allocation. In
that case, staff may need to return to the Council for final approval of adjusted program
levels. After Council approval of the revised FY18-19 Annual Action Plan, the City will
submit its Plan to HUD for final approval.
The final FY18-19 Annual Action Plan will include the following programs:
# Project Name
1 La Isla Pacifica Shelter for Battered Women and Children
2 Homeless Prevention and Safety Net Services
3 Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with Disabilities
4 Gilroy Streets Team
5 Landlord Tenant Counseling and Dispute Resolution Services
6 Live Oak Adult Day Care
7 Gilroy Compassion Center- Day Center
8 Project Sentinel Fair Housing
9 Gilroy Demonstration Garden
10 Rebuilding Home Repair, Rehabilitation and Accessibility Modification Program
11 Aquatics Program
12 Gilroy Youth Center
13 Code Enforcement
14 Homeless Outreach
15 Connell Apartments Acquisition
16 Program Administration
17 Public infrastructure projects
18 Downtown business façade improvement
19 Housing for current and formerly homeless persons
Table 8 – Project Information
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing
underserved needs
Funding of most public services programs was based on a competitive process that
involved a Request for Proposals. Interested applicants submitting funding requests
based on the targeted priorities developed by the Cit y. Proposals were then reviewed by
the City's Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (CNRC), interviews
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
took place of each applicant and based on both the interview and application, the CNRC
scored each applicant. Funds were distributed based on the applicants meeting the
stated priorities and funding availability. The main obstacle to this process was the
limited federal and local funding. However, the City, with the assistance of the CNRC,
made strategic investments and funded projects that could make the greatest impact to
the ongoing needs of the community utilizing available CDBG and HTF revenue.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Projects
AP -38 Projects Summary
Project Summary Information
Table 9 – Project Summary
1 Project Name La Isla Pacifica Shelter for Battered Women and Children
Target Area
Goals Supported Support basic need services
Support for supportive services
Needs Addressed Basic Needs
Funding Housing Trust Fund: $12,500
Description Emergency shelter and supportive services to victims of
domestic violence.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
This program will serve 20 unduplicated participants who
will consist primarily of women and children.
Location Description Community Solutions will provide services at undisclosed
locations.
Planned Activities The program will provide emergency shelter and
supportive services to women who have endured intimate
partner abuse and their minor children.
2 Project Name Homeless Prevention and Safety Net Services
Target Area
Goals Supported Emergency rental assistance
Needs Addressed Basic Needs/Supportive Services
Funding Housing Trust Fund: $34,465
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Description St. Joseph's Family Center will assist low-income
residents with emergency rental assistance, benefits
screening, housing search and other supportive services
that will prevent families from becoming homeless and/or
secure new permanent housing.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will provide services to 480 unduplicated
participants of which some will include familial units.
Location Description The program will provide services at the St. Joseph Family
Services office located at:
7950 Church Street, Suite A
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide emergency rental assistance and
assessments of service needs.
3 Project Name Housing and Emergency Services for Persons with
Disabilities
Target Area
Goals Supported Support for supportive services
Needs Addressed Supportive Services
Housing Services
Funding Housing Trust Fund: $21,070
Description The Silicon Valley Independent Living Center will assist
individuals with disabilities and their families in their
housing search for affordable and accessible housing.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will serve 60 unduplicated participants.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Location Description The program will provide services at Silicon Valley
Independent Living Center offices located at:
7881 Church Street, Suite C
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide assistance for individuals with
disabilities and their families to transition from
homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary
housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated
housing and emergency assistance, security deposits,
rent, information and referral, providing other assistance
as to ensure long-term sustainability of the independent
living solutions.
4 Project Name Landlord Tenant Counseling and Dispute Resolution
Services
Target Area
Goals Supported Tenant-landlord mediation
Needs Addressed Housing Services
Funding Housing Trust Fund: $26,000
Description The project will educate tenants and landlords on their
respective rights and responsibilities, provides instruction
on how to resolve housing problems and conducts dispute
resolution services.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will serve 237 unduplicated participants
which will include single person and family households.
Location Description The program will provide services at Project Sentinel's
office located at:
8339 Church St., Ste. 104
Gilroy, CA 95020
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Planned Activities The program will enhance the quality of life via supportive
services for the lower income residents of Gilroy through
housing-related education, counseling, intervention, and
dispute resolution services (case management utilizing
conciliation and mediation).
5 Project Name Live Oak Adult Day Care
Target Area
Goals Supported Support basic need services
Support for supportive services
Needs Addressed Basic Needs/Supportive Services
Funding CDBG: $10,000
Description Live Oak Adult Day Care services
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will provide services to 40 seniors.
Location Description The program will provide services at:
651 W. Sixth St., Suite 2
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide disabled, at-risk Gilroy seniors
with socialization, recreation, exercise, mental stimulation
and nutritious meals, removing them from isolation into a
life-enhancing and protected environment, and to provide
family caregivers with respite and support services which
will enhance their ability to care for their senior loved one
in the home setting.
6 Project Name Gilroy Compassion Center- Day Center
Target Area
Goals Supported Services to the homeless
Support basic need services
Needs Addressed Basic Needs
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Funding CDBG: $13,500
Housing Trust Fund: $20,965
Description The Day Center provides drop-in access to basic needs,
including bathrooms, personal care items, laundry, clean
clothes, etc. and a one-stop location for resources and
referrals.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will service 500 homeless individuals.
Location Description The program will provide services at the Compassion
Center currently located at:
370 Tomkins Ct.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide basic needs such as food,
clothing, and hygiene to the homeless, as well as
connections to services to increase functioning and self -
sufficiency, such as a mailing, address, phones, referrals,
case management, and service opportunities. It will also
provide case management and outreach services.
7 Project Name Project Sentinel Fair Housing
Target Area
Goals Supported Promote fair housing choice
Needs Addressed Housing Services
Funding Housing Trust Fund: $26,000
Description Project Sentinel will provide services to address the
incidence of illegal housing discrimination by investigating
complaints, administering systemic audits, conducting
community outreach and education and seeking redress
for victims of such discrimination.
Target Date 6/30/2019
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will provide services to 38 unduplicated
participants.
Location Description The program will provide services at the Project Sentinel
office located at:
8339 Church Street, Ste. 104
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide Fair Housing services, which
include community outreach and education and the
investigation of complaints and audits for unreported
violations. These services are designed to address the
incidence of illegal housing and provide redress to victims
of such discrimination. These services help ensure
balanced, integrated communities and meet HUD
requirements for affirmatively furthering fair housing.
8 Project Name Gilroy Demonstration Garden
Target Area
Goals Supported Support for supportive services
Needs Addressed Supportive Services
Funding CDBG: $14,500
Description The Gilroy Demonstration Garden offers a variety of
classes and programs to the community related to
gardening, health and nutrition.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The project will serve 75 unduplicated participants.
Location Description Services will take place at the City-owned community
garden located at:
7360 Eigleberry St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Planned Activities The program will provide teen internship and youth day
camps, "Coffee and Cops" events and gardening classes
for local residents.
9 Project Name Rebuilding Home Repair, Rehabilitation and Accessibility
Modification Program
Target Area
Goals Supported Housing rehabilitation
Needs Addressed Housing Services
Funding CDBG: $120,000
Description The project will repair housing units to attend to the
immediate health and safety needs of eligible low-income
homeowners with an emphasis on eligible low-income
homeowners living in the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Area (NRSA).
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will serve 20 unduplicated households.
Location Description Services will take place at various residences within the
City of Gilroy city limits.
Planned Activities The project will focus on the correction of safety hazards
and urgent repairs that will attend to the immediate health
and safety needs of the household. It will also provide
urgent/critical repairs and/or accessibility improvements to
ensure safe, affordable and a decent living environment
for the occupants.
10 Project Name Aquatics Program
Target Area
Goals Supported Support youth services
Needs Addressed Youth Services
Funding CDBG: $5,000
Description Free swim lessons for low income youth
Target Date 6/30/2019
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will provide free swim lessons to 70 youth
ages 5-17.
Location Description The program will provide services at Gilroy High School
located:
750 W. 10th St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide free swim lessons to children
ages 5 to 17 to learn to be water safe. Swim lessons will
follow the American Red Cross swim lesson curriculum
and instructors are certified Lifeguards and Water Safety
Instructors.
11 Project Name Gilroy Youth Center
Target Area
Goals Supported Support youth services
Needs Addressed Youth Services
Funding CDBG: $35,000
Description Gilroy Youth Center services
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will provide services to 150 school aged
youth.
Location Description The program will provide services at the Gilroy Youth
Center located at:
227 IOOF Ave.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide educational and
recreational/enrichment activities to school age youth at
the Gilroy Youth Center. Services will include homework
assistance, field trips, workshops and various physical
activities.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
12 Project Name Code Enforcement
Target Area CITY OF GILROY NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
STRATEGY
Goals Supported Code Enforcement services
Needs Addressed Housing Services
Funding CDBG: $8,000
Description Code Enforcement services in NRSA
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The program will assist 20 households.
Location Description The program will provide code enforcement services within
the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.
Planned Activities This program will provide code enforcement services
within the NRSA to enable 20 low- and moderate-income
households to retain decent, affordable housing.
13 Project Name Housing Rehabilitation
Target Area
Goals Supported Housing rehabilitation
Needs Addressed Housing Services
Funding CDBG: $200,000
Description Assistance with acquisition of an existing 28-unit
multifamily housing project named Connell Apartments.
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
The project will assist in the acquisition of a 28-unit multi-
family affordable housing project.
Location Description NSRA
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Planned Activities Funds will go toward the projects to facilitate extensive
capital repairs and rehabilitation of existing units. The
renovation and preservation of this housing asset will
restore and enhance the physical condition of the building;
as well as provide stable housing for extremely low income
and formerly homeless persons.
14 Project Name Program Administration
Target Area Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.
Goals Supported
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $102,875
Description Program administration of the CDBG program
Target Date 6/30/2019
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
Location Description Management of the CDBG program will take place at
Gilroy City Hall located at:
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
Planned Activities The program will provide oversight and monitoring of the
CDBG and HTF programs.
15 Project Name Public Infrastructure
Target Area Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area.
Goals Supported
Needs Addressed
Funding $167,640
Description Public Facilities and Improvements
Target Date 6-302019
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed
activities
TBD
Location Description Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area
Planned Activities TBD
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing
underserved needs
Funding of most projects was based on a competitive process that involved a Request
for Proposals. Interested applicants submitting funding requests based on the targeted
priorities developed by the City. Proposals were then reviewed by the City's Community
and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee (CNRC), interviews took place of each
applicant and based on both, the CNRC scored each applicant. Funds were distributed
based on the applicants meeting the stated priorities and funding availability. The main
obstacle to this process was the limited availability of funding. However, the City, with
the assistance of the CNRC, made strategic investments and funded projects that could
make the greatest impact to the ongoing needs of the community.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low -
income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed
The City will continue to utilize both CDBG and Housing Trust Fund funding to support
citywide efforts that meet the needs of the community. However, it will continue to make
strategic investments within the boundaries of its Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
Area (NRSA) as approved by HUD. The NRSA is an area of both low-income and
minority concentration, and in need of a higher-level investments to meet the needs of
the community.
Geographic Distribution
Target Area Percentage of Funds
CITY OF GILROY NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION STRATEGY 25%
Table 10 - Geographic Distribution
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
Based on the Choice Neighborhoods 2013 Mapping Tool provided by HUD, 30.77% of
households within the NRSA are in poverty or have extremely low incomes (30% of
county median income). The vacancy rate for this area is 7.02 % as compared to the
surrounding county rate of 4.6%. Further research showed that HUD has identified the
three combined tracts as "Qualified Census Tracts" (QCTs) for Low Income Housing
Tax Credits. To meet this designation a tract must have either a poverty rate of at least
25% or 50% or more of its householders must have incomes below 60% of the county
median income. The same area is currently considered by the Small Business
Administration to be a "Historically Underutilized Business Zone" (HUB Zone). Small
businesses in such a zone have certain preferences in obtain ing federal contracts.
Further, a considerable number of homeless persons are found in the NRSA and
most of Gilroy’s providers of homeless services are located within the boundaries.
Also, the NSRA census tract has recently been identified as a potential Opportunity
Zone private investment incentive program. This program was adopted in the new
federal budget for FY 19, and associated federal tax reform legislation passed by
Congress and signed by the President in December 2017. The program will be
administered by U.S. Treasury Department with program rules projected to become
available in late 2018. The program will allow private companies to invest in community
and job creation activities within the Gilroy Opportunity Zone and in exchange receive a
federal tax credit.
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Affordable Housing
AP -55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g)
Introduction
The need for affordable housing is a major issue facing the city of Gilroy. While the City
has limited to no capacity to provide direct financial support of affordable housing, there
does exist opportunities to both advocate and support efforts in acquiring affordable
housing financing. Also, the City will continue to support the rehabilitation of housing for
low income residents. These improvements will include, but not be limited to,
accessibility improvements, roof repairs, and kitchen remodels. All the improvements
will strive to insure safe and sanitary housing for individuals who are otherwise unable
to make such improvements. Finally, the City will explore the possibility of utilizing
CDBG funding to rehabilitate the city-owned Cherry Blossom apartments and convert
to a permanent supportive housing site for critically homeless individuals.
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless 3-7
Non-Homeless 48
Special-Needs 0
Total 51-55
Table 11 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement
One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through
Rental Assistance 1-3
The Production of New Units 0
Rehab of Existing Units 20
Acquisition of Existing Units 10
Total 31-33
Table 12 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type
Discussion
Rebuilding Together, Silicon Valley will rehabilitate 20 units through its Home Repair,
Rehabilitation and Accessibility Modification program. The project will repair housing
units to attend to the immediate health and safety needs of eligible low-income
homeowners with an emphasis on eligible low-income homeowners living in the
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA.) The focus of repairs will address
urgent and critical needs, as well as minor repairs, accessibility and mobility needs and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
limited rehabilitation.
The City will also provide $102,000 to support to utilize HTF funds to rehabilitate low-
income rental housing, such as the Cherry Blossom building in downtown Gilroy.
Improvements will include building envelope improvements (i.e. replacement of roofs,
replacement of windows, and replace common flooring.); energy efficient upgrades;
water conservation upgrades; mobility upgrades; unit interior upgrades; and, other
common area upgrades. Also through this funding, all units will become af fordable
housing units of which units will be set-aside as rapid re-housing units for Gilroy’s most
vulnerable residents in jeopardy of losing stable housing or homeless. Through the
County’s rapid re-housing program, and similar program, the County will work with City
staff to refer households that are homeless or at-risk of homelessness to the set-aside
units upon turnover. The County will provide rental subsidies and case management
services to ensure that these residents can achieve housing stability while living at such
rental units.
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -60 Public Housing – 91.220(h)
Introduction
No public housing as defined by HUD exists within the City of Gilroy. Therefore, no
efforts to support public housing will take place.
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing
N/A
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in
management and participate in homeownership
N/A
If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial
assistance will be provided or other assistance
N/A
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i)
Introduction
The city will continue to invest in services that meet the needs of homeless individuals.
With one of the highest per-capita population of homeless individuals in the County,
homelessness represents one of the top social issues that impacts the community. The
city will participate in countywide efforts to address homelessness and play an active
role in the "Community Plan to End Homelessness".
Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending
homelessness including
Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and
assessing their individual needs
The City will invest $30,000 as part of a homeless outreach program that will target
homeless individuals in Gilroy and the entire South County region. Funds would come
from the County and the City of Morgan Hill (pending City Council approval). In South
County, outreach is currently limited to law enforcement, volunteers and the existing
safety net agencies. This proposal would increase the effectiveness of the countywide
coordinated entry system (which is required by HUD). Having dedicated outreach teams
would increase the number of individuals who are assessed and would increase the
speed at which individuals and families are referred to and enrolled in supportive
housing programs. Moreover, through a partnership with the Santa Clara County
Behavioral Health Services Department (BHSD) this program will help ensure that: 1)
the County is addressing some of the unmet mental health needs of homeless persons;
and, 2) will establish a more holistic and humane response to meeting the needs o f
unsheltered homeless persons. These teams would work closely with the County's
outreach team and other contracted outreach teams. Further, two formerly homeless
individuals sit on the Continuum of Care board.
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless
persons
There does not exist an emergency shelter within the City of Gilroy. The City will
continue to fund day services that will m eet the basic needs of homeless individuals. It
will also fund efforts to support victims of domestic violence who are often left homeless
when an individual leaves their abuser. The City will make efforts to identify long-term
housing for these clients by the agency that provides such services.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied
youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living,
including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience
homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to
affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were
recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
The City does not have the financial resources to directly fund such activities. Agencies
that provide services to the homeless will continue to explore housing options with other
funds that are leveraged with City resources.
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless,
especially extremely low -income individuals and families and those who are:
being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as
health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities,
and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public
or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment,
education, or youth needs.
The City will fund homeless prevention efforts designed to prevent an individual(s) from
becoming homeless. The services provided will help families threatened with eviction, or
help homeless, unhoused families secure permanent housing with emergency rental
assistance. The funds will serve as a bridge to solving a crisis situation.
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j)
Introduction
There exist multiple barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay
Area. These barriers include the lack of developable land which increases housing
development costs and local opposition that is often based on misconceptions, such as
a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic
congestion. [1] However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on
strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce
whose incomes may significantly limit their housing choices. [2]
The City identified several potential constraints to the development, maintenance, and
improvement of housing and affordable housing, in its 2015 -2023 Housing Element
update: [3]
The General Plan constitutes the highest-level policy document for the City. As
such, a City’s General Plan contains several items that can affect the
development and distribution of housing, such as land -use classifications, and
density and intensity standards.
The City’s residential zoning designations control both the use and development
standards of each residential parcel, thereby influencing the development of
housing. The City has found that the maximum development limits established by
the Zoning Ordinance do not pose a constraint to the development of housing,
although these regulations do have an obvious effect on the cost and
development of housing.
Parking requirements do not constrain the development of housing directly, but
may reduce the amount of available lot area for residential development.
[1] Association of Bay Area Governments. “Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” 2014.
[2] Association of Bay Area Governments. “Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy.” 2012.
[3] City of Gilroy. “2015-2023 Housing Element.” 2014.
Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies
that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax
policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges,
growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment
There are no specific actions proposed to ameliorate the negative effects of public
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing. The City will continue to enforce
the Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) Affordable Housing Exemption
Procedure (Procedure). The intent of the Procedure is to set forth specific criteria and
guidelines for the affordable housing exemptions included in the City of Gilroy Zoning
Ordinance. The goal of the Procedure is to meet the current and future needs of all
segments of the community specifically both for-sale and rental housing to low income
individuals. The City, through the implementation of its Housing Element, will continue
to identify opportunities to promote the development of affordable housing where
possible.
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
AP -85 Other Actions – 91.220(k)
Introduction
The Annual Action Plan has highlighted many of the specific actions the city plans to
take in Fiscal Year 2018-2019. Below is further information on other actions it plans to
undertake during the same timeframe.
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
As noted prior, the most significant obstacle in meeting underserved needs is the limited
availability of funding. The City will continue to research potential opportunities for
additional sources of funding to address the needs it is unable to address with the funds
available. When funds become available, the City will research the potential uses of
those funds and make a determination as to whether or not it can be used to address
underserved needs. Such efforts will be addressed when the City reports out its
accomplishments through the CAPER.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing
The City will continue to support and provide technical assistance to developers of
affordable for-sale and rental housing. The City will provide $200,000 to support the
acquisition of the Connell Apartments. It will continue to research and evaluate options
that could provide additional financial support the development of affordable housing.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
The City will continue to educate the community regarding the hazards of lead
poisoning, particularly with regard to lead-based paint hazards. It will
maintain information on the dangers of lead based paint at the Community
Development counter. It will provide handouts to rehabilitation program clients and test
for lead-based paint as required. Finally, it will continue to implement the local Lead
Based Management Plan and update when necessary.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families
The City expects that through the community services funding both through the CDBG
and Housing Trust Fund programs will reduce the number of poverty -level families.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
City staff and staff from the other CDBG entitlement cities in the County of Santa Clara
and the County of Santa Clara as well as the Housing Authority of Santa Clara County
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
participate in quarterly CDBG Coordinators meetings. These meetings discuss data
resources and strive to coordinate requests for information to both public and private
countywide agencies. These meetings help City staff to better understand the County
and non-profit social service structure. Additionally, HUD staff meets with this group to
clarify issues and assist in providing ongoing programmatic technical information. The
email list serve for this group enables members to share information and to provide
technical assistance to one another. The quarterly meetings promote and create an
environment of cooperation and understanding of differing needs, concer ns, and issues
among the group. This expansion of knowledge of regional issues and sharing of
information benefits each of the individual jurisdictions represented in the group.
Also, City staff participates in the South County Collaborative that consists of providers
of services to low income and special needs residents of Gilroy, San Martin and Morgan
Hill. The Collaborative is a nonprofit organization , which is able to apply for funding that
benefits the communities it serves. Collaborative members share information through an
active list serve, and receive notices of public comment periods on the Annua l Action
Plans and CAPERs.
Lastly, the City's Police Department hosts a monthly meeting that includes
representatives from County Mental Health, staff from various nonprofit agencies, health
workers, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, faith-based organizations, as well as
individual volunteers. The focus is on identifying resources and on sharing information
on homeless individuals that have been identified by the police and outreach workers as
being ready to get off the streets or who are in particularly dire need. The sharing of
information and resources also has as a goal of conserving resources such as police
time spent in re-arresting the same homeless person multiple times. The group is also
considering viable alternatives to illegal encampments in Gilroy.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing
and social service agencies
As noted in the "Actions planned to develop institutional structure" the City actively
participates in various groups and collaborative designed to share information, bring
awareness to the needs and services of the community and organized to design
solutions to the many needs in the community. The City will continue to participate in
such efforts with the goal of bringing forth additional resources to City residents.
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
Annual Action Plan
2018
54
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Program Specific Requirements
AP -90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
The city will continue to collect additional revenue to support the actions noted in the
Annual Action Plan. The funds, known as Program Income, is collected from various
sources to include repayment of past rehabilitation loans, rents from city-owned
properties that were improved with CDBG and Housing Trust Fund funds and bank
interest.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are
identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available
for use that is included in projects to be carried out.
1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the
start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 36,000
2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used
during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified
in the grantee's strategic plan. 0
3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0
4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0
5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0
Total Program Income:
36,000
Other CDBG Requirements
1. The amount of urgent need activities
0
2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that
benefit persons of low and moderate income. Overall Benefit - A consecutive
period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum
overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and
moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan.
70%
Discussion
See above
8.A.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 2018-2019 Draft Annual Action Plan (1693 : Community Development Block Grant FY 2018-2019 Annual Action Plan)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Presentation of Work Plans and Follow Up Information from the
First Phase of the Board and Commission Assessment Report
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Bryce Atkins
Strategic Plan Goals
Financially Sustainable
and High Performing ☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
a) Receive report and provide direction to staff; and,
b) Consideration of the Request of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to amend
the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Ordinance No. 2009-03.
BACKGROUND
At the February 5, 2018 Council Meeting, staff presented Phase 1 of an assessment
report of the City’s boards and commissions (Assessment Report). The Assessment
Report analyzed data from four of the City’s boards and commissions, namely the Arts
and Culture Commission (ACC), Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC), Parks and
Recreation Commission (PRC), and the Public Art Committee (PAC). At the completion
of the Assessment Report presentation, Council proceeded to issue direction:
1. that the boards and commissions are to present annual work plans to the
Council;
2. to identify training for the boards and commissions; and,
9.A
Packet Pg. 216
3. to assess why commissioners either choose to remain on commissions or leave
their commission.
This report provides information relative to these informational matters for Council
discussion and direction. Additionally, the BPC voted to recommend to Council
amendments to be made to their authorizing ordinance, Ordinance No. 2009 -03. They
are requesting enhanced review authority including review of planned development
applications, donation use recommendations, and other review authority.
COMMISSIONER SURVEY
Staff conducted a voluntary, anonymous survey of current and past commissioners.
Staff solicited input from 193 individuals to participate in the survey. Of those invited, 35
participated, approximately 18% of the invitees. Attached to this staff report are the
summary survey results from Survey Monkey, the web portal survey tool used for this
survey. Participation occurred from all of the City’s boards and commissions, with the
exception of Open Government Commission and the Street Naming Committee.
The survey questions were straightforward to gain a general idea of the sentiment of the
participants, instead of a scientific statistical approach. For this reason it is possible not
all participants understood fully some of the survey questions. For example, Question 9
was asking those who were Planning Commissioners (6 total from Question 1
responses) if they went to the Planning Commissioner Academy offered by the League
of California Cities. There were 21 respondents, with 14 properly skipping the question.
As such, although the response is only 23% responding yes (total of 5) from the survey
data, the responses actually represents 83% of the 6 planning commissioners that
participated in the survey responding yes.
The attached survey provides more detailed information. Large takeaways from the
survey results include:
Responses to training varied across the boards. Some report extensive training
taken, while others report no training. This variety covers both internally provided
training, as well as external training sources. Responses indicate that there is a
blend of external and internal training, trending towards more external training
sources, and about half were held outside of Gilroy.
Causes for not attending training generally fell into the categories of either no
knowledge of training opportunities (either self-knowledge or not informed of any
by staff liaisons), or lack of budget and/or reimbursement for attending the
training.
Reasons for joining the commission are also varied. However, roughly half can
be categorized as wanting to give back or serve to improve the community. The
other half are varied expressions of being a topic area of experience or particular
interest.
9.A
Packet Pg. 217
63% had completed their first term on their commission. For those that are on
their second term as a commissioner, the responses as to what inspired a
second term include unfinished business on the commission, made positive
contributions, and enjoyed serving on the commission.
The reasons for respondents who resigned or did not continue being a
commissioner after their first term are varied. The larger response categories are
family and work obligations, meetings not productive, little support from staff, and
experience on the commission not being as expected.
COMMISSIONER TURNOVER RATES
Staff has reviewed a commissions, committees and board members listing since March
of 2014. Based on the data, below is a matrix identifying some statistics relating to the
turnover rates of commission members.
Board, Commission
or Committee Name
Commissioners
Within 5 Years
Currently
Seated Resignations Finished
1 Term
Finished
2 Terms
Arts and Culture 11 6 5 1 1
Bicycle Pedestrian 10 5 1 4 0
Parks and Recreation 11 7 1 4 1
Public Art Committee 12 7 2 2 0
The data is from an index of commissioners for the City’s boards. It was maintained by
multiple part-time employees. A more robust and accurate system has recently been
implemented by the City Clerk’s Office to track commissioners attendance and
transitions into and out of office.
Based upon the available data, ACC has the most resignations and has two current
vacancies, one currently filled temporarily with an individual who has completed two
terms (two terms is the term limit for commissioners) until an application is received for
a new member. PRC has the most number of full terms completed, followed closely by
BPC. The PAC has two members that are from the ACC, which is allowable under the
City’s Charter. BPC has a greater level of turnover, as their commission only has five
members. It is worth noting however that only one of these turnover positions has been
due to resignation part way through a term and most completed their full terms before
leaving office.
COMMISSION REQUESTED TRAINING
Each of the commissions and committee that were included in the Assessment Report
have met and identified external training each commission would be interested in
attending. Attached to this staff report is a list of training identified that seems to be
within the realm of the commissions’ privy. The estimated cost for all of the training is
$31,770. At this time, there are no funds in the General Fund FY 18-19 budget
established for the City’s boards and commissions.
9.A
Packet Pg. 218
The cost provided above is for just four of the commissions. Should this amount be
averaged (by four advisory bodies) and extrapolated over all fifteen boards and
commissions, the amount would be approximately $119,000 annually in training.
However, this assumes the same rate of external trainings being desired by all boards
and commissions. Some may desire more, and some may desire less.
Per the Gilroy City Charter Section 905, for members of boards and commissions to
receive reimbursement for travel and other expenses incurred on official duty, the
expenditures must have been authorized by the City Council. As mentioned above, no
funds have been appropriated for this purpose in the City’s FY 2018 or FY 2019 budget.
Should Council desire to approve the requested trainings, or approve a modified list of
trainings, a budget amendment would be needed.
The four advisory bodies have largely kept their training requests to include only free
and low cost trainings. However, the Bicycle Pedestrian and Parks and Recreation
Commissions have identified conferences that will require larger expenditures, should
all commissioners attend. Council is able to direct that only a certain number of
members to attend, as an alternative to the full cost of sending the entire advisory body.
TRAINING PROVIDED INTERNALLY
In discussions with the City Clerk, all of our board and commission members receive the
mandatory training as directed by the Open Government Ordinance, consisting of a two
hour video training. Additionally, board and commission members receive training from
staff liaisons and occasionally the City Attorney’s Office regarding the Brown Act, ethics
training, and other legally mandated trainings. Beyond this required training, each
board is different.
As discussed above in the survey results, the experience of training for the boards and
commissions is not consistent across all of the boards. This may be due in part to the
nature of the boards, and the amount of training that is available. Planning
Commissions are requisite bodies for cities, and there is a significant amount of training
opportunities available. However, something as specific as the Historic Heritage
Committee may not have many external training opportunities to partake in.
Additionally, another factor in the inconsistent training is that, as discussed as a finding
in the first phase of the board and commission assessment, there is no formal training
program. Each staff liaison operates with great independence in organizing and
providing training resources, in partnership with board members that may be more
active and research training opportunities. As discussed in the assessment report, and
directed by Council, a formal training program is to be developed to help make such
training as consistent as possible among the boards.
COMMISSION WORKPLANS
Each commission and committee has provided a work plan that was devised at each of
their respective public meetings. Attached are the work plans from each of the four
9.A
Packet Pg. 219
boards and commissions in the first phase of the assessment. The y are presented in a
single document for Council review and direction.
The activities listed in the work plan are all consistent with the advisory role of the
commissions and committee. Additionally, each of the boards identified where these
work plan activities fit into the goals of the City’s current strategic plan. Finally, staff has
provided comments of how the draft work plans align with operational capacity.
BPC ORDINANCE CHANGE REQUEST
The BPC, a commission created by ordinance and not in the City Charter, submitted a
request in June of 2017 to Council via staff requesting a change to their ordinance,
granting increased authority. The processing of this request was postponed, as the first
phase of the Boards and Commissions assessment was underway. Now that the
assessment has been completed for the BPC, staff is bringing this request before
Council. Ordinance No. 2009-03, adopted March 16, 2009, grants the following powers
and duties to the BPC, the requested items by the BPC in red. Staff is of the opinion
the existing language in the City Ordinance is general in nature that each of the
requested changes can be interpreted as already being included within the existing
ordinance language.
SECTION I
The Commission shall have the power and duty to:
a) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and City Administrator in all
matters pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian matters;
Review the annual capital improvement plan for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities and make recommendations to the City Administrator and the
Council;
b) Study problems, activities and concerns of bicyclists and pedestrians; hold
forums on these problems, and recommend programs, policies and
procedures to the City Administrator and City Council which the Commission
finds necessary and/or desirable;
c) Work with other City Commissions and City Council in providing input on
bicycle and pedestrian issues in the community;
Transportation projects and new development projects with private and
public streets shall be reviewed by the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
early in the planning and design stage, to provide the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission an opportunity to provide comments and
recommendations regarding Complete Streets features to be
incorporated into the project;
9.A
Packet Pg. 220
Formulate and recommend to the Council and the City Administrator
policies for the acquisition, development and improvement of all bicycle
and pedestrian facilities
d) Annually determine Commission goals and objectives and report these to the
City Council and City Administrator; and
e) Perform such other duties related to bicycle and pedestrian matters as may
be proscribed by the City Council not inconsistent with the provisions of the
City Charter and/or this City Code.;
Advise the Council and City Administrator with respect to offers of
donations of money, personal property, or real estate to be used for
bicycle and pedestrian purposes
As for the transportation projects and new development reviews, request item (g), the
BPC can render advice and recommendations through the review an d
recommendations to amend the policies and master plans that inform the Development
Review Group’s review of bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and infrastructure for such
projects. This is contained in item (a) of their existing authority. To require de velopment
projects to go to the BPC would add another month onto the review time needed to
return comments back to the applicant. This would be the exact opposite of Council’s
stated desire to expedite development to be more customer-friendly and attract
development in the community.
RECOMMENDATION
The training of the City’s boards and commissions need to be more formally structured.
The deviations between each board in their opinion and responses to the survey
indicate that some are not feeling adequately prepared in fulfilling their service, while
others are trained thoroughly. The decentralized approach of the staff liaisons in regard
to training may need revision to create consistency in the quality of internal training, and
method for researching and providing information about cost-effective external training.
This is consistent with the recommendation and direction provided to Council when
reviewing the Assessment Report earlier this year.
In reviewing the powers and duties for City commissions, the powers and duties for
each commission is written broadly to allow Council bandwidth to direct City
commissions to provide advice to City Council a various issues the City Council deems
so. As such, to avoid redundancy of verbiage within the existing ordina nce, staff is
recommending against making changes to the existing BPC ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None. This is an informational report to receive direction from Council. Based on
direction given by Council, any training requests with funding needs would likely
necessitate a mid-cycle budget amendment to include such costs as Council directs.
9.A
Packet Pg. 221
Other costs based upon the direction received for the work plans may require a budget
amendment, or may be funded through existing appropriations. Any training or activity
that requires a budget amendment will be brought back before Council.
NEXT STEPS
Based on Council’s direction, the four advisory bodies’ work plans will be finalized, and
then those boards and commissions will commence implementation of those work
plans. Additionally, staff will be working on:
1. Structuring a formal training program with each of the boards to ensure they are
receiving adequate information about externally and internally delivered training
to assist them in their service to the community; and,
2. Beginning work with the remaining boards and commissions to begin developing
their work plans for future presentation to Council for direction.
Attachments:
1. Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results
2. Draft Commission Work Plans
3. Commission Training Requests
4. Gilroy Ordinance 2009-03 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
9.A
Packet Pg. 222
Q1 1. Please identify on which commission(s) you have served?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
Arts and
Culture...
Bicycle
Pedestrian...
Building Board
of Appeals
Community and
Neighborhood...
General Plan
Advisory...
Historic
Heritage...
Housing
Advisory...
Library Bond
Oversight...
Library
Commission
Open
Government...
Parks and
Recreation...
Personnel
Commission
Physically
Challenged...
Planning
Commission
Public Art
Committee
Street Naming
Committee
Youth
Commission
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
1 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
8.57%3
11.43%4
5.71%2
2.86%1
17.14%6
2.86%1
5.71%2
2.86%1
5.71%2
0.00%0
5.71%2
17.14%6
8.57%3
17.14%6
8.57%3
0.00%0
8.57%3
Total Respondents: 35
Arts and Culture Commission
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Building Board of Appeals
Community and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee
General Plan Advisory Committee
Historic Heritage Committee
Housing Advisory Committee
Library Bond Oversight Committee
Library Commission
Open Government Commission
Parks and Recreation Commission
Personnel Commission
Physically Challenged Appeal Board
Planning Commission
Public Art Committee
Street Naming Committee
Youth Commission
2 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Q2 2. Why did you initially desire to serve on a City commission?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
#RESPONSES DATE
1 To give back to my community.4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 I wanted to serve my city and my community. I also wanted to represent the younger demographic.4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 So that arts and culture is reflective of ALL that live in Gilroy.4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 Serve my community by having the opportunity to select, review and participate in the
management of the city employees that work in our community.
4/8/2018 9:03 PM
5 I wanted to help make Gilroy a better community in which to live.4/8/2018 10:57 AM
6 I did not believe the commission was listening to public input.4/8/2018 10:54 AM
7 After I graduated from Leadership Gilroy in 2000, I want to get give back in some way to our
community.
4/7/2018 11:11 AM
8 Found a problem on raodway 4/7/2018 10:22 AM
9 Because I am an disability advocate 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
10 Contribute to Planning Gilroy's Future 4/7/2018 1:17 AM
11 I thought my experience as an Architect would help on this commission.4/6/2018 4:49 PM
12 I'm a local Realtor and wanted to be a part of improving residential housing in Gilroy 4/6/2018 2:12 PM
13 I wanted to be part making Gilroy appealing to help bring businesses to Gilroy.4/6/2018 12:10 PM
14 I thought my experience would be helpful 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
15 I believe participation in government is part of the civic duty of every member of a democracy. I
saw that Gilroy had unfilled positions and therefore applied.
4/6/2018 10:15 AM
16 I simply wanted to contribute to our community 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
17 I feel libraries are vital to a community and provide services that are important.4/6/2018 9:55 AM
18 To serve the Gilroy Community and support its leaders as we plan for the future of our city.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
19 I wanted to participate in improving Gilroy's quality of life infrastructure.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
20 Be involved in my Cities Government, to give back to my Community & as a Leadership Gilroy
Graduate, to fulfill my duty as a engaged City resident. Because I care & want to help improve my
Community!
4/6/2018 8:57 AM
21 I wanted to help improve the youth if Gilroy.4/6/2018 8:56 AM
22 To give back to our community my time and talent, and to make the city of Gilroy a more desirable
place to live and work
4/6/2018 8:32 AM
23 I have always had a passion for bike and ped, and I wanted to see an increase of these where I
live. I also live in a neighborhood where I can walk/bike to restaurants/shops/grocery.
4/6/2018 7:59 AM
24 I was very interested in the growth of our city.4/6/2018 6:24 AM
25 I wanted to help the youth in the community achieve more.4/5/2018 11:45 PM
26 I thought my knowledge and past experience with Human Resources and civil employee hiring
would be beneficial to the City.
4/5/2018 9:41 PM
27 I was asked to serve and considered it part of being involved with the Library.4/5/2018 9:15 PM
28 To give back to my community in the hopes of improving Gilroy for the better of its residents and
businesses.
4/5/2018 8:49 PM
29 I believe in resident input and participation. Housing is a basic quality of life issue.4/5/2018 7:25 PM
3 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
30 To give back to the City of Gilroy 4/5/2018 7:23 PM
31 To be educated, inform, thaught, what role it play, leagally, services, the City and community work
together.
4/5/2018 7:01 PM
32 I felt the need to provide assistance, knowledge, experience in being the arts and art culture to our
city. We have a long ways to go in adding public art so I wanted to be part on getting us on the
track to be a city with art culture.
4/5/2018 6:22 PM
33 Wanted to include more youth and have the parents to understand that there are options for them.4/5/2018 5:24 PM
34 Get involved with my new community that I LOVE!4/5/2018 5:15 PM
35 I was interested in revitalizing the downtown neighborhoods 4/5/2018 5:06 PM
4 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Q3 3. What training have you received from City staff? Be specific as
possible.
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Very minimal from Community Development side. Upon appointment to the Planning Commission,
I had about a 10-minute conversation with planning staff. Extensive training from the Clerk's Office.
This includes mandatory trainings and other trainings specific to City systems, etc.
4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 I have not received training as of yet. But training on how to conduct personnel hearings is
scheduled for June.
4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 None. Did not go through any training by city staff.4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 City offered numerous training for citizen community members relevant to our boards and offered
additional training on labor related training opportunities that full time city employees also
attended.
4/8/2018 9:03 PM
5 rules and regulations of Brown Act.4/8/2018 10:57 AM
6 When I first joined the commission I was given about an hour orientation by staff and copies of all
relevant documents. (Gen Plan, Specific Plans, Development standards, Zoning ordinances, ect.
4/8/2018 10:54 AM
7 Harassment in the work place, holding a hearing, the Brown Act, steps for employees to file a
complaint. I'm sure I've forgotten others!
4/7/2018 11:11 AM
8 Met with Ron Allen and others.4/7/2018 10:22 AM
9 N/A 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
10 None 4/7/2018 1:17 AM
11 I have not been contacted regarding training or notified of any meetings 4/6/2018 4:49 PM
12 When I joined the Planning Commission, the head planner at the time provided us with books to
read regarding city planning.
4/6/2018 2:12 PM
13 None 4/6/2018 12:10 PM
14 Background and process on bonding by the city. Interaction of commission, city staff and council 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
15 Since joining the committee, we have had two, perhaps three, presentations on historic window
preservation during regular meeting times. I also attended an optional presentation on the Brown
Act and attended a webinar, also optional, on historic preservation.
4/6/2018 10:15 AM
16 Extensive training on dispute resolution procedures and open govern 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
17 Video 4/6/2018 9:55 AM
18 No training. Educating myself on the issues. City consultants information about the General Plan is
very informative and helpful in my educating myself on the issues to be decided.
4/6/2018 9:18 AM
19 Various training mostly while Henry Servin. Training with the Brown Act, different road and street
signage, VTA's involvement, CalTrans initiatives, Street design, etc..
4/6/2018 9:18 AM
20 Very little training has been given to me. NONE as a Bike/Ped for 2 years, then with 10 years on
Parks & Recs., there was also NO training. In fact, I asked Staff to include the Cities written rules
on our Commission Responsibilities & Duties at each Retreat so that every Commissioner could
see/have them. I noticed when I went off this Commission, staff did not include them in the Retreat
Agenda. (I looked on-line.) I've been on the Planning Commission 1.5 years. I was given 5
minutes of private training from the Staff person (Rebecca Torintino), she gave me her personal
cell & a generic pamphlet to read regarding Planning Commission roles/responsibilities. She did
not give me any papers from the City besides an empty folder. The first year I expressed interest
in going to League of Cities Planning Commission Academy (as well did other Commissioners), but
it did not happen because Staff didn't register us in time. I did attend the Planning Academy this
year & found it incredibly helpful.
4/6/2018 8:57 AM
5 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
21 I was trained how to plan an event.4/6/2018 8:56 AM
22 The only training I received from city staff in 15 years of being on a committee and on a
commission two (4 year)terms each is the Brown Act twice the last time was in March 2014.
4/6/2018 8:32 AM
23 Brown Act via a video online, and had to read the Open Government Ordinance online.4/6/2018 7:59 AM
24 At our first meeting rules and procedures of the process were explained and we received written
materials.
4/6/2018 6:24 AM
25 Not much. I went to a conference for youth commissions and we talked about how to make the
group work well together.
4/5/2018 11:45 PM
26 Classes from City hired attorneys regarding personnel matters.4/5/2018 9:41 PM
27 None 4/5/2018 9:15 PM
28 In the past (over 20 years ago), when I first served on the Parks & Recreation Commission we
received training through the California Parks & Recreation Society (CPRS) annual conference
training modules for Commissioners. As a Planning Commissioner (also over 20 years ago) we
participated in the League of California Cities conference training modules for Planning
Commissioners in CEQA Training, land use, zoning and tentative map law and also went to the
State Capital and saw the legislature in action. As a current Parks & Recreation Commissioner
once again, the City Clerk and City Attorneys have also provided training on Brown Act and local
open government policies. On the General Plan Advisory Committee we have received several
presentations on the General Plan document , toured housing sites and listened to developers and
other city’s officials on their experience.
4/5/2018 8:49 PM
29 Brown Act. Speakers and presentations about current activities at several meetings.4/5/2018 7:25 PM
30 None, written job discription First training session next month.4/5/2018 7:23 PM
31 None. Had one meeting from 2017-2018 hour. I walked out having no purpose or understanding
why I was there.
4/5/2018 7:01 PM
32 None. However our liaison Carina has been instrumental in providing much needed information to
our committee and currently working on plans for training programs and or seminars that can
benefit our group
4/5/2018 6:22 PM
33 Brown act 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
34 Sue O'Strander provided orientation; taken AB1234 training; CPRA/open government training;
currently attending Planning Commissioner Academy in Monterey
4/5/2018 5:15 PM
35 as it pertains to revitalization, no training was received. training was received to assess grant
proposals and make funding recommendations.
4/5/2018 5:06 PM
6 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Q4 4. Have you attended any training, related to your specific
commission? If so, what was the training?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Yes. I attended the Planning Commissioner Academy as offered by the League of California
Cities.
4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 N/A 4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 Yes. I have facilitated trainings to to help people better work together and create and measure
impact in their communities.
4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 I have, each year I attended specific training related to civil service employee training offered by
the city.
4/8/2018 9:03 PM
5 Do the annual retreats count?4/8/2018 10:57 AM
6 I have attended League of CA Cities Planning Commissioners Academy twice, and a Planning
Commissioners Workshop Series presented by the American Planning Association.
4/8/2018 10:54 AM
7 On how to hold a hearing for employees disputing a termination.4/7/2018 11:11 AM
8 no 4/7/2018 10:22 AM
9 No within the city 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
10 No 4/7/2018 1:17 AM
11 I have not been contacted regarding training or notified of any meetings 4/6/2018 4:49 PM
12 We had yearly retreats that included some training.4/6/2018 2:12 PM
13 I had a meeting to where they explained the commission, given the wrong information.4/6/2018 12:10 PM
14 accounting and construction management 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
15 The webinar I attended, mentioned above, was specific to my committee's mission.4/6/2018 10:15 AM
16 See above 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
17 A video 4/6/2018 9:55 AM
18 No training. Again self interest and concern drives my willingness to learn the issues and support
our Civic Leaders.
4/6/2018 9:18 AM
19 I went to Los Angeles to a symposium related to public transit and movement.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
20 League of CA Cities Planning Commission Academy April 4,5,6 2018.4/6/2018 8:57 AM
21 As a youth commissioner I had to attend the training were we planned out the year.4/6/2018 8:56 AM
22 Gilroy foundation fundraising training. Arts Council Silicon Valley fundraising & grant training 4/6/2018 8:32 AM
23 Yes. Complete Streets workshop, Webinars from PedBikeInfo.org like Making Signals Work for
Bike/Ped, Webinar Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Plan, Webinars from VTA APBP Bike/Ped Variety,
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
4/6/2018 7:59 AM
24 Yes. We had a number of meetimgs where we had guest speakers come to give us presentations
about trends in building, open space protection and population demographics
4/6/2018 6:24 AM
25 In the conference we talked about how to plan events and execute them as a group.4/5/2018 11:45 PM
26 See #3 4/5/2018 9:41 PM
27 No 4/5/2018 9:15 PM
7 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
28 For the Parks & Recreation Commission I have received briefings from the Recreation Director,
Recreation Manager and a tour by the Parks Superintendent of several park sites. in addition the
City Clerk and City Attorney have conducted Brown Act training and open government policy. The
General Plan Advisory Committee has been given training in the areas previously mentioned in the
prior question.
4/5/2018 8:49 PM
29 In my job, I come into contact with a lot of homeless issues. I write grant proposals for homeless-
serving nonprofits.
4/5/2018 7:25 PM
30 No 4/5/2018 7:23 PM
31 One meeting and no training 4/5/2018 7:01 PM
32 None but would love to. We are working on researching seminars or training 4/5/2018 6:22 PM
33 No 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
34 AB1234 training; Planning Commissioner Academy 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
35 no, all training was part of scheduled meetings 4/5/2018 5:06 PM
8 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
65.63%21
34.38%11
Q5 4a. Was the training provided by external sources?
Answered: 32 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 32
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
9 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
43.75%14
56.25%18
Q6 4b. Did the training require travel outside the City?
Answered: 32 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 32
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
10 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Q7 4c. Training location, provide city.
Answered: 27 Skipped: 8
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Monterey, CA 4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 N/A 4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 Gilroy, San Jose 4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 Some training was in the city others were in neighboring cities.4/8/2018 9:03 PM
5 Gilroy 4/8/2018 10:57 AM
6 San Jose, Monterey, El Cerito, San Leandro.4/8/2018 10:54 AM
7 City Hall 4/7/2018 11:11 AM
8 Gilroy 4/6/2018 2:12 PM
9 City office 4/6/2018 12:10 PM
10 San Jose 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
11 Gilroy city hall 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
12 At the computer 4/6/2018 9:55 AM
13 N/A 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
14 Los Angeles 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
15 Monterey CA 4/6/2018 8:57 AM
16 Senior Center, Gilroy 4/6/2018 8:56 AM
17 San Jose, California 4/6/2018 8:32 AM
18 San Jose, Davis,4/6/2018 7:59 AM
19 Gilroy 4/6/2018 6:24 AM
20 Redwood city 4/5/2018 11:45 PM
21 City Hall 4/5/2018 9:41 PM
22 San Francisco, Anaheim, Fresno, Sacramento, Monterey, San Jose, Mt. View, and Santa Clara 4/5/2018 8:49 PM
23 Gilroy 4/5/2018 7:23 PM
24 None 4/5/2018 7:01 PM
25 N/a 4/5/2018 6:22 PM
26 N/a 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
27 Monterey, CA 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
11 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
61.29%19
3.23%1
12.90%4
45.16%14
Q8 4d. How did you learn about the training?
Answered: 31 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 31
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY NAME OF SOURCE)DATE
1 Social media 4/9/2018 10:44 AM
2 N/A 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
3 It was not a training, it was to go over policies 30 minutes long.4/6/2018 12:10 PM
4 Employment 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
5 I did not.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
6 Recieved an invitation from the Mineta Transportation Institute 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
7 Gilroy arts alliance 4/6/2018 8:32 AM
8 VTA, Santa Clara County Public Health, Silicon Valley Bicycle Association, Smart Growth
America, National Complete Streets Coalition
4/6/2018 7:59 AM
9 None 4/5/2018 9:15 PM
10 Housing Authority, League of California Cities, and CPRS 4/5/2018 8:49 PM
11 Self sought 4/5/2018 7:25 PM
12 None 4/5/2018 7:01 PM
13 N/a 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
City staff
Trade
association
Training flyer
Other (please
specify name...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
City staff
Trade association
Training flyer
Other (please specify name of source)
12 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
14 City Council during their interviews 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
13 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
23.81%5
76.19%16
Q9 5. If your service was as a planning commissioner, have you attended
the League of California Cities' Planning Commissioner Academy
training?
Answered: 21 Skipped: 14
TOTAL 21
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
14 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Q10 6. If you have not attended external training, what was the reason for
not attending training in the past?
Answered: 26 Skipped: 9
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Lack of budget/reimbursement by the City. As a volunteer Commissioner, it's a challenge to attend
training if they are not cost-neutral for myself.
4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 N/A 4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 NA 4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 N/A 4/8/2018 9:03 PM
5 did not pertain to my position on Personnel Commission.4/7/2018 11:11 AM
6 Didn't know about it 4/7/2018 10:22 AM
7 Because no trainings have been offered 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
8 not asked to 4/6/2018 4:49 PM
9 When I joined the Planning Commission, around 2006, I don't believe it was offered. If it was, I
don't remember being encouraged to attend.
4/6/2018 2:12 PM
10 Not an option.4/6/2018 12:10 PM
11 N/A 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
12 No external training for my committee was offered.4/6/2018 10:15 AM
13 NA 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
14 Not offered. There was a county library conference the first year.4/6/2018 9:55 AM
15 Not aware of its availability.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
16 N/A 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
17 City has not offered & was not given any information as to trainings when on Bike-Ped & Parks &
Recs.
4/6/2018 8:57 AM
18 It was not needed.4/6/2018 8:56 AM
19 Not offered 4/6/2018 8:32 AM
20 I was not asked to attend training.4/5/2018 9:15 PM
21 I think currently the issue is the lack of training budget for Commissioners 4/5/2018 8:49 PM
22 Not offered by staff 4/5/2018 7:25 PM
23 Not given 4/5/2018 7:01 PM
24 Not aware of any training 4/5/2018 6:22 PM
25 Didn’t have one 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
26 Not Applicable 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
15 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
62.86%22
37.14%13
Q11 7. Have you completed your first term?
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 35
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
16 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
28.57%8
35.71%10
46.43%13
42.86%12
Q12 8. If you are on your second (or more) term, either with the same
commission or a different one, what inspired you to apply for your second
term?
Answered: 28 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 28
#OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE
1 This question doesn't apply to me.4/13/2018 3:10 PM
2 N/A 4/10/2018 1:35 PM
3 NA. Was in my first term.4/9/2018 10:44 AM
4 Was not seeing a benefit being on the Public Arts Committee. Felt there was confusion on what
the roles ere of the Board, especially waiting for the results of the evaluations was happening.
4/6/2018 12:10 PM
5 N/A 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
6 Did not reapply 4/6/2018 9:55 AM
7 N/A 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
8 Moved away from city limits and had to resign from position.4/5/2018 9:41 PM
9 NA 4/5/2018 7:23 PM
10 Giving it one more meeting chance to see if things improve.4/5/2018 7:01 PM
11 Still on first term 4/5/2018 6:22 PM
Unfinished
business on...
Made positive
contribution...
Enjoyed
serving on...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Unfinished business on commission
Made positive contributions to the City while serving on commission
Enjoyed serving on commission
Other (please specify)
17 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
12 Not Applicable 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
18 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
16.00%4
12.00%3
4.00%1
16.00%4
4.00%1
16.00%4
16.00%4
68.00%17
Q13 9. If you ceased being a commissioner after one term, or resigned
from a commission, what are the reasons you chose to not continue
serving on commission?
Answered: 25 Skipped: 10
Total Respondents: 25
#OTHER (BE SPECIFIC)DATE
1 N/A 4/10/2018 1:35 PM
2 N/A served two full terms and completed another half term for a prior commissioner who left early.4/8/2018 9:03 PM
3 N/A 4/7/2018 9:02 AM
Family
obligations
Work
obligations
Meeting time
conflicts
Experience on
commission w...
Meeting too
long
Meetings were
not productive
Little support
from city staff
Other (be
specific)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Family obligations
Work obligations
Meeting time conflicts
Experience on commission was not as expected
Meeting too long
Meetings were not productive
Little support from city staff
Other (be specific)
19 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
4 Served two terms. Couldn't return to the Planning Commission for four years after completing my
second term.
4/6/2018 2:12 PM
5 Project was completed 4/6/2018 11:51 AM
6 Relocated out of state 4/6/2018 9:58 AM
7 None that would cause me to resign our not continue to support our leaders.4/6/2018 9:18 AM
8 Served maximum term 4/6/2018 9:18 AM
9 I resigned from Parks & Recs after 10 years with one year left on my last full term because I was
appointed to the Planning Commission.
4/6/2018 8:57 AM
10 College 4/5/2018 11:45 PM
11 Moved out of City of Gilroy 4/5/2018 9:41 PM
12 not applicable 4/5/2018 9:15 PM
13 In 1990-2009 I became employed as a City Employee and not allowed to remain on Planning
Commission, prior to Planning Commission appointment in the late 1980s I was on the Parks &
Recreation Commission for 2 years before appointment to the Planning Commission.
4/5/2018 8:49 PM
14 NA 4/5/2018 7:23 PM
15 N/a 4/5/2018 6:22 PM
16 Very restricted for something that shouldn’t be 4/5/2018 5:24 PM
17 Not Applicable 4/5/2018 5:15 PM
20 / 20
City of Gilroy Boards and Commissions Assessment Survey 9.A.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Commissioner Voluntary Survey Results (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
Arts and Culture Commission Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Update Strategic Plan Review plan narrative and
update monthly at ACC
meetings until complete.
#4 Customer Service Commissioner and
staff driven
Propose ACC
conduct
workshop and
then update
quarterly
Facilitate the Annual Art-
Supporting Business Award
Identify and nominate award
recipients. Purchase an
award for distribution.
#4 Customer Service Commissioner
driven
No staff time
involved
Expand community outreach
for arts related events and
programs
Collaborate with GAA and
Gilroy Welcome Center on
arts related events; develop
an arts promotion video with
local school promoting arts;
utilize social media for arts
outreach efforts.
#4 Customer Service Commissioner and
staff driven
Limited staff time
available due to
other priorities;
recommend
Commission
narrow focus and
align capacity for
one-year work
plan
Page 1 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
Public Art Committee Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Update Public Art Policy Review policy narrative and
update monthly at PAC
meetings until complete
#4 Customer Service Committee
Member and staff
driven
Commission form
ad hoc committee
to revise policy
with City staff
providing support
Develop Arts Catalog Identify and catalog a list of
potential projects for
developers consideration
#4 Customer Service Committee
Member and staff
driven
Commission form
ad hoc committee
to revise policy
with City staff
providing support
Create a city-wide art portfolio Take pictures, incorporate
pertinent art details of public
and private public art, and
include them in a portfolio.
#4 Customer Service Committee
Member driven
No staff time
involved
Page 2 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Enhance Park Safety City staff will connect PRC
with neighboring cities; PRC
will review usage of park
security patrol and meet with
Police Dept. to discuss park
improvements.
#1 Economic Development
#3 Public Safety
#4 Customer Service
Commissioner and
staff driven
Narrow focus and
align Commission
capacity for one-
year goal
Develop PRC mission
statement
Development of a mission
statement that aligns with
Council Strategic Goals. This
can take place at monthly
PRC meetings
#4 Customer Service Commissioner and
staff driven
Part of regular
Commission
meeting agenda
for PRC can
develop mission
statement
Raise funds for Youth
Scholarship Program
Staff will plan and facilitate
annual Great Garlic 5K run
and PRC will recruit event
sponsorship. PRC will
spearhead Disney Raffle and
Santa's Breakfast cooking
team.
#1 Economic Development
#2 Public Safety
#3 Customer Service
Commissioner and
staff driven
Commission
undertake efforts;
staff already
promotes the
events
PRC participation in
downtown events
Staff will identify potential
downtown events for PRC
participation. Staff will
provide PRC with the
necessary equipment/games
for downtown opportunity.
PRC will work the downtown
event.
#2 Downtown Revitalization Commissioner and
staff driven
Limited staff time
involved
Page 3 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
Parks and Recreation Commission Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Monitor conditions of
City parks
PRC will identify a public
park, monitor park conditions
and update Public Works
staff at PRC meetings.
#1 Economic Development
#2 Public Safety
#4 Customer Service
Commissioner
driven
Limited staff time
involved;
however, PW
Park staff already
conduct
walkthroughs of
City parks
Ensure City participation in
Tree USA Program
Public Works staff will
complete Tree USA Program
application and comply with
the designation
requirements.
#4 Customer Service Staff driven Not Commission
role
Completion of the Street Tree
Brochure
Public Works staff will update
the Street Tree brochure.
#4 Customer Service Staff driven Not Commission
role
Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP)
Provide Council and Staff
with its recommendations of
proposed CIP projects.
#4 Customer Service Staff driven Already included
in City Charter
Be active in opening of new
City parks and trails
Participate in ribbon cutting
of Cydney Casper Park,
Hecker Pass Park, and
Ronan Channel Trail
#4 Customer Service Commissioner
driven
Not Commission
goal as
Commission
would be invited
to participate
already
Page 4 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Support community obesity
prevention programs through
bicycle and pedestrian
activities
Continued participation in
Safe Routes to School, Walk
& Roll to School, Silicon
Valley Bike Coalition, GUSD
and Parent Teacher
Association efforts.
#3 Public Safety
Commissioner
driven
City staff is already
involved with this
process
Support BMX Track effort Work with Garlic City BMX
and update Parks Master
Plan to include BMX track at
the Gilroy Sports Park.
#1 Economic Development Commissioner
driven
City staff is already
involved with this
process; no
Commission role
at present due to
complexity of City
work involved
Support the development of a
second Downtown Paseo
Walkway
Advocate for the conversion
of Gourmet Alley from 4th -
5th Street into a bicycle-
pedestrian facility to
encourage restaurant and
shopping destinations.
#1 Economic Development
#2 Downtown Revitalization
Commissioner
driven
City staff is already
involved with this
process; project
development
outside of
Commission role
Encourage the design and
construction of bicycle
pedestrian bridge from Hecker
Pass Trail at Burchell Rd. to
Gilroy Gardens.
Advocate for the
development of the bicycle
pedestrian bridge.
#1 Economic Development Commissioner
driven
Commission
provides input
during project
development
process
Page 5 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Draft Work Plan 2018
12 MONTH DELIVERABLE
PROJECTS KEY TASKS CITY COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GOALS LEAD COMMENTS
Implement Green Bicycle
Lanes
Create a pilot program and
assist with public outreach
efforts.
#3 Public Safety Commissioner
driven
City staff is already
involved with this
process; once City
staff develops
updated policy,
Commission will
have opportunity to
review
Support Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) Growth and
Sustainability
Form a Gilroy SRTS Task
Force; Create a SRTS
Coordinator position; and
support SRTS activities
#3 Public Safety Commissioner
driven
City staff already
involved in SRTS
activities. Task
Force is
appropriate;
details of
scope/authority/
membership must
be established
first. Creation of
positions is City
Council authority
with
recommendation
of City
Administrator not
in Commission's
powers.
Page 6 of 6 5/9/2018
9.A.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Draft Commission Work Plans (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-
BOARD/
COMMISSION TRAINING TRAINING COMPONENT COST PER
ITEM QUANTITY TOTAL
Americans for the Arts
Annual Conference
Free online streaming -$ 7 -$
Admission ($20 max/event)20.00$ 10 200$
Mileage to San Jose Museum
of Art ($0.545 per mile, 64.6
miles round trip x 10 trips)
0.55$ 646 352$
552$
Cost for 7 commissioners 552.07$ 7 3,864$
Total ACC Training Request 3,864$
Registration fee ("early bird
rate")
650.00$ 1 650$
Park tour 50.00$ 1 50$
Hotel 250.00$ 3 750$
Per diem 70.00$ 3 210$
Mileage to Sacramento 0.55$ 294 160$
1,820$
Cost for 7 commissioners 1,820.23$ 7 12,742$
Total PRC Training Request 12,742$
Americans for the Arts
Annual Conference
Free online streaming -$ 7 -$
Admission ($20 max/event)20.00$ 10 200$
Mileage to San Jose Museum
of Art ($0.545 per mile, 64.6
miles round trip x 10 trips)
0.55$ 646 352$
552$
Cost for 7 committee members 552.07$ 7 3,864$
Total PAC Training Request 3,864$
Arts and Culture
Commission (ACC)
Silicon Valley Creates
Monthly Workshops
Subtotal
Subtotal
Silicon Valley Creates
Monthly Workshops
Public Art Committee
(PAC)
Subtotal
Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC)
Annual California Parks
and Recreation Society
(CPRS) Conference -
Sacramento, CA
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Commission Training Requests (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1
BOARD/
COMMISSION TRAINING TRAINING COMPONENT COST PER
ITEM QUANTITY TOTAL
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center
Webinar
Webinar Free N/A -$
America Walks Webinar Webinar Free N/A -$
Valley Transportation
Authority Monthly
Webinars
Webinar Free N/A -$
Registration fee 35.00$ 1 35$
Mileage to San Jose State
University Student Union
0.55$ 64 35$
Per diem 70.00$ 1 70$
140$
Cost for 5 commissioners 139.88$ 5 699$
Registration fee 375.00$ 1 375$
Hotel 250.00$ 4 1,000$
Airfare to Los Angeles
roundtrip and shuttle/taxi
service during trip
450.00$ 1 450$
Per diem 70.00$ 4 280$
2,105$
Cost for 5 commissioners 2,105.00$ 5 10,525$
Traffic: Why We Drive
the Way We Drive
(Book)
Book purchase 15.00$ 5 75$
Podcast - Phill Gannon Podcast Free N/A -$
Total BPC Training Request 11,299$
Total Training Requests From the Four Boards 31,770$
Average 7,942$
15 Commissions 119,137$
Subtotal
Biannual California
Bicycle Summit - Los
Angeles, CA (Furthest
potential site for 2019
conference)
Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission (BPC)
Subtotal
Annual Silicon Valley
Bike Summit - San Jose,
CA
9.A.c
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Commission Training Requests (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Commission
Proposed
Additions
to:
City
of
Gilroy
Ordinance
#2009-‐03
Section
I
(f)
Review
the
annual
capital
improvement
plan
for
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities
and
makes
recommendations
to
the
City
Administrator
and
the
Council;
(g)
Transportation
projects
and
new
development
projects
with
private
and
public
streets
shall
be
reviewed
by
the
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Commission
early
in
the
planning
and
design
stage,
to
provide
the
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Commission
an
opportunity
to
provide
comments
and
recommendations
regarding
Complete
Streets
features
to
be
incorporated
into
the
project;
(h)
Formulate
and
recommend
to
the
Council
and
the
City
Administrator
policies
for
the
acquisition,
development
and
improvement
of
all
bicycle
and
pedestrian
facilities;
(i)
Advise
the
Council
and
City
Administrator
with
respect
to
offers
of
donations
of
money,
personal
property,
or
real
estate
to
be
used
for
bicycle
and
pedestrian
purposes;
and
9.A.d
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Gilroy Ordinance 2009-03 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (1672 : Board and Commission Assessment Phase 1 Follow-Up)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design Options for the Gilroy
Center for the Arts
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Recreation Department
Submitted By: Maria De De Leon
Prepared By: Maria De De Leon
Adam Henig
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Financially Sustainable
and High Performing
☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.
BACKGROUND
In August 2017, the City of Gilroy sought proposals from architectural firms for the
design of conceptual plans and cost estimates for the City-owned Gilroy Center for the
Arts facility, located on 7341 Monterey Road. The scope of work consisted of
developing design options for facility upgrades to increase the building occupancy from
49 to 92 (147 without tables).
Also, the City asked the following be included in the design: ADA, seismic, HVAC, entry
and exiting, plumbing, and electrical improvements. Cost estimates are based on
current projections for environmental documents/permits, design, construction,
construction management, and any other associated cost with this project. Of the three
firms the committee interviewed, the project contract was awarded to Weston Miles
Architects (WMA) of Morgan Hill, in the amount of $35,000.
DISCUSSION
9.B
Packet Pg. 252
Currently, the Gilroy Center for the Arts is designed as one large open floor layout.
Following meetings between the Gilroy Arts Alliance (GAA) and City staff, as well as
receiving tours of the facility, WMA’s objective of the conceptual design was to create
opportunities for more usable spaces, enabling simultaneous usage. To maximize the
building’s size, space would be needed for a theater with a backstage room, a
classroom, an art gallery, a gift shop and a concession stand.
Regardless of how the building is used, due to the age of the facility there are several
existing elements that are out of compliance and would need to be rectified. This
includes the restrooms (which do not meet accessibility codes), environmental issues,
and the number of parking lot stalls. W MA prepared two conceptual design options that
address all of these matters.
Version 1, the performance area includes a large platform that is slightly larger
than the existing platform and seating for 92 at tables (as opposed to the existing
maximum occupancy of 49). In addition, the design includes a backstage and
secure tech booth, an enclosed platform space for rehearsals and other small
meetings, an enclosed classroom or meeting space, and larger and accessible
restrooms. The layout allows GAA more flexibility to both utilize and rent multiple
spaces at the same time.
Version 2, which includes all of the Version 1 improvements, WMA has provided
an option for a 660 square-foot addition that could provide a larger foyer space,
as well as a gift shop to be operated independently. It is designed with the intent
that it could be added at a later date.
Parking Plan
In the site plan, the parking lot has been reconfigured to accommodate the necessary
ADA stalls, as well as to make it safer for drivers and pedestrians. Despite the changes,
with only one more stall factored into the current design (bringing the total number to 37,
including 2 ADA spots), based on the maximum occupancy levels and the size of the
building, 49 spots are required per the city’s zoning code. If the 660-square-foot
addition is included, the number increases to 56. However, according to the City’s
Planning Division, since that addition is not expected to be used for classroom, meeting,
or performance space, a variance could be granted, which would keep the number of
stalls required to 49.
Project Challenges
Meeting the parking requirements for Version 2 pose a challenge in that there will be a
shortage of 12 spaces. In meetings with key staff from Engineering, Planning and Police
departments, two ideas have been proposed to address this challenge.
1. The most cost-effective and least disruptive option is to allow parking at the
Horlein Court and Monterey Street City-owned parking lot. The lot is directly
across the street, thus, enabling patrons to easily access the theater. Given that
9.B
Packet Pg. 253
the theatrical performances would be the occasions where occupancy levels
would be the highest, it should be noted that these events occur at night and/or on
the weekend. Taking this into consideration, the impact should be minimal on the
existing weekday, day-to-day downtown business operations. The stalls needed
would be sufficient to cover the difference. However, if the parking lot were ever to
be developed for other uses, the Center would lose access to those parking stalls
and would need a remedy.
2. Another proposal to meeting parking requirments is to pave over the current
vacant lot adjacent to the Art Center on 7th Street and Eigleberry Street. This
would increase the costs of the project and require a parking management plan
study.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Version 1 estimated cost $2,566,820
Version 2 estimated cost $2,928,500
The project construction costs do take into account the current unprecedented inflation
occurring in this region. WMA applied a premium overall of 5% for the high costs of
living in this area and have included an overall contingency and escalation of 25%.
Currently, the proposed project is not included in the 5-year CIP and thus no funding
has been identified for this project. Public Facilities Impact fund has a negative balance
so any funding for this capital project would be 100% from the General Fund reserves
as no other funding source is available in the current 2-year operating budget.
Attachments:
1. 20180427 Presentation
2. Gilroy Center for the Arts CE
3. GAA Presentation1
9.B
Packet Pg. 254
R e m o d e l & P o s s i b l e A d d i t i o n
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Aerial View
Monterey Road W 7th Street Grass Field Gourmet Alley 9.B.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Site Plan
•2 separate parking lots
•36 existing parking stalls
•Angled stalls at planter do not meet
current codes
•ADA parking is too far from main entry
requiring public sidewalk to access to
facility
Monterey Road 7th Street Gourmet Alley 6th Street 9.B.a
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Floor Plan
•Accommodates 14 Tables
•89 SF of storage
•Insufficient number of plumbing fixtures for
occupancy
•No ADA access to platform
•No plumbing at concession area
•No classroom space
•No lockable tech booth
•No secured stage area
•Not able to use the space for multiple events
at the same time
7th Street Parking Lot Grass Field Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Floor Plan Version 1
•Accommodates 23+ Tables
•300+ SF of storage and full height storage cabinets
•ADA ramps to access platform
•New concession area with sink , dishwasher, refrigerator
and dedicated storage
•Classroom space with sink
•Lockable tech booth
•Vestibule to help control natural light
•New code compliant ADA accessible restrooms,
janitorial closet and drinking fountain
•Bifold door with white board & projection capabilities to
secure back stage area and allow main space to be used
for multiple events
7th Street Parking Lot Monterey Road
Gourmet Alley Grass Field 9.B.a
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Floor Plan Version 2
•Includes all upgrades included in Version 1
•Adds new 650 SF addition to front of
building- as a entry lobby and can include the
gift shop and exhibition space as well as
ticketing
Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road Grass Field 7th Street Parking Lot 9.B.a
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Site Plan
•2 ADA stalls located at entry
•Good circulation
•Added sidewalk along building
•Added landscaping throughout
•Enlarged patio space
•Added paving along Gourmet
Alley
7th Street Grass Field Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Concept and Materials
•Wire mounted frames and light fixtures for
flexibility
•Industrial style finishes
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Thank you!
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: 20180427 Presentation (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Project:Gilroy Center for the Arts (with Addition)Estimate Type: Construction Documents
Location:Gilroy Center for the Arts Engineers and Architects Estimate
Date:4/5/2018 Revision 0
KEY
Version 1 =Without Addition
Version 2 =With Addition
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
02 41 13 Selective Structure Demolition
Asbestos Removal Flat Rate 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ $90,000.00
Remove Paving 7,500.00 sf 1.50$ 11,250.00$ $15,000.00
Remove Walls and Safe Off Structure 4,940.00 sf 4.00$ 19,760.00$ $19,760.00
Remove Wall Sections and Prep for New Windows and Equipment 6.00 ea 1,500.00$ 9,000.00$ $9,000.00
Remove Floor Tile and Carpet 1,000.00 sf 2.50$ 2,500.00$ $2,500.00
02 41 16 Structure Demolition -$
Remove <E> Window System and Concrete Curb ea 850.00$ 850.00$ $850.00
Subtotal: Division 2 133,360.00$ $137,110.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
03 10 00 Concrete Patching 120.00 lf 45.00$ 5,400.00$ 5,400.00$
03 20 00 Concrete Reinforcing 1,200.00 sf 6.00$ 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
03 30 00 Cast-In-Place Concrete: for Addition only -$
Footings 483.00 lf 50.00$ -$ $24,150.00
Concrete (Including rebar)600.00 sf 35.00$ -$ $21,000.00
Subtotal: Division 3 7,400.00$ $52,550.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
05 12 00 Architectural metal 400.00 sf 40.00$ 16,000.00$ $28,000.00
05 31 00 Steel Decking sf 8.00$ -$
05 50 00 Metal Fabrications sf 7.00$ -$
05 51 33 Ladder - ea 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ $5,000.00
Subtotal: Division 5 21,000.00$ $33,000.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
06 10 00 Rough Carpentry 4,940.00 sf 25.00$ 123,500.00$ $135,000.00
06 20 00 Finish Carpentry 4,940.00 sf 12.00$ 59,280.00$ $64,560.00
06 41 16 Architectural Cabinets 101.00 lf 350.00$ 35,350.00$ $35,350.00
Subtotal: Division 6 218,130.00$ $234,910.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
07 24 53 Roofing 4,940.00 sf 15.00$ 74,100.00$ $80,700.00
07 21 00 Roof Insulation 4,940.00 sf 2.50$ 12,350.00$ $13,450.00
07 21 00 Interior Wall Insulation 4,940.00 sf 3.00$ 14,820.00$ $17,850.00
07 62 00 Flashing and Sheet Metal 600.00 lf 6.00$ 3,600.00$ $4,500.00
07 72 33 Roof Hatch ea 2,500.00$ -$
07 92 00 Joint Sealants ls 1,500.00$ 1,500.00$ $2,000.00
07 95 00 Seismic Joints- Additon only 100.00 lf 75.00$ $7,500.00
Subtotal: Division 7 $106,370.00 $126,000.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
08 11 13 Doors and Frames -$
Entry Glass Storefront and Door 1.00 ea 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ $32,500.00
Double Doors with Panic Hardware (6x8) Wood 2.00 ea 6,500.00$ 13,000.00$ $13,000.00
Single Doors (3 x 8 ) Wood 10.00 ea 1,800.00$ 18,000.00$ $18,000.00
Moveable Partion ea 28,000.00$ 28,000.00$ $28,000.00
Windows 5.00 ea 225.00$ 1,125.00$ $1,125.00
Subtotal: Division 8 67,625.00$ $92,625.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
09 22 16 Non-Structural Framing 480.00 lf 120.00$ 57,600.00$ $68,000.00
Gypsum Board Ceiling/Framing 4,940.00 sf 12.00$ 59,280.00$ $65,364.00
09 3900 Sound Proofing Flat Rate unit 22,000.00$ 22,000.00$ $22,000.00
09 65 66 Flooring -$
Platform 300.00 sf 20.00$ 6,000.00$ $6,000.00
Tile (restroom)412.00 sf 20.00$ 8,240.00$ $8,240.00
Typical Flooring 2,000.00 sf 20.00$ 40,000.00$ $52,000.00
09 77 23 Fabric Covered Tack Paneling 500.00 sf 15.00$ 7,500.00$ $7,500.00
09 91 00 Painting -$
Paint Exterior 5,000.00 sf 2.50$ 25,920.00$ $34,760.00
DIVISION 7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
DIVISION 8 - DOORS AND HARDWARE
DIVISION 9 - FINISHES
QUANTITY
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
DIVISION 6 - WOOD AND PLASTIC
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
Gilroy Center for the Arts
Construction Detail Schematic Estimate
QUANTITY
DIVISION 2 - EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
DIVISION 5 - METALS
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Gilroy Center for the Arts CE (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design Options for the Gilroy Center for the Arts)
Paint Interior 4,940.00 sf 4.00$ 19,760.00$ $27,980.00
Paint Doors 10.00 ea 200.00$ 2,000.00$ $2,000.00
Subtotal: Division 9 248,300.00$ $293,844.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
10 11 00 Visual Display Units 1.00 750.00$ 750.00$ $750.00
Markerboard 10.00 sf 40.00$ 400.00$ $400.00
10 14 00 Signage -$
Entry Signage and Site Signage 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ $13,500.00
10 44 00 Fire Protection Specialties -$
Fire Extinguishers 4.00 ea 400.00$ 1,600.00$ $1,600.00
Subtotal: Division10 10,250.00$ $16,250.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
By Owner: TBD -$
-$
Subtotal: Division 11 -$
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
Window Shades - Motorized (Assumed)30.00$ -$
Entrance Mat (Assumed)ea 500.00$ 500.00$ $500.00
Subtotal: Division 12 500.00$ 500.00$
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
Water Based Fire Suppression System (Including Underground)4,940.00 12.25$ 60,515.00$ $68,477.00
Subtotal: Division 12 60,515.00$ $68,477.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
22 00 00 Plumbing Systems -$
Restroom 3.00 ea 25,000.00$ 75,000.00$ $75,000.00
Kitchen 1.00 ea 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ $10,000.00
Classroom Sink 1.00 ea 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ $4,000.00
Subtotal: Division 22 89,000.00$ 89,000.00$
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
HVAC sf 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ $85,000.00
Commissioning ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ $2,000.00
Controls sf 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ $10,000.00
Subtotal: Division 23 87,000.00$ $97,000.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
26 10 00 Electrical Demo sf 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ $30,000.00
25 40 00 New electrical and Lighting sf 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ $260,000.00
26 50 00 Lighting Controls sf 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ $25,000.00
Subtotal: Division 26 305,000.00$ $315,000.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
27 71 00 Building Data & Sound - Infrastructures sf 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ $27,500.00
27 72 20 Building Data & Sound - Devices TBD BY OWNER sf
Subtotal: Division 27 25,000.00$ $27,500.00
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
Fire Sprinklers
28 81 00 Fire Alarm 4,940.00 sf 2.83$ 14,000.00$ $15,819.00
28 82 00 Electrical Safety & Security - Devices 4,940.00 sf 4.30$ 21,242.00$ $23,420.10
Subtotal: Division 28 35,242.00$ $39,239.10
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
Surveying sf 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Demolition of portion of courtyard 15,000.00$
Subtotal: Division 31 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Version 1 Version 2
32 13 13 Grading Flat Rate 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ $30,000.00
Planting and irrigation 6,366.00 sf 7.00$ 44,562.00$ $44,562.00
Asphalt (parking lot)6,000.00 sf 6.00$ 36,000.00$ $36,000.00
Stripping (parking lot)15,100.00 sf 0.40$ 6,040.00$ $7,000.00
DIVISION 26 - ELECTRICAL
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
DIVISION 23 - HVAC
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
DIVISION 31- EARTHWORK
DIVISION 32- EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS
QUANTITY
QUANTITY
DIVISION 28- ELECTRONIC SAFETY AND SECURITY
QUANTITY
DIVISION 27 - COMMUNICATION
DIVISION 11 -EQUIPMENT
QUANTITY
DIVISION 10 - SPECIALTIES
QUANTITY
DIVISION 12 - FURNISHING
DIVISION 22 - PLUMBING
DIVISION 15 - FIRE SUPRESSION
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Gilroy Center for the Arts CE (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design Options for the Gilroy Center for the Arts)
Concrete Curbs (parking lot)250.00 lf 50.00$ 12,500.00$ $12,500.00
32 18 16 Outdoor Seating 8.00 unit 400.00$ 3,200.00$ $3,200.00
Subtotal: Division 32 132,302.00$ $133,262.00
Quantity Unit UNIT COST
-$
Wet Utilities ls na
-$
Subtotal: Division 33 -$
Version 1 Version 2
Total 1,551,994.00$ $1,761,267.10
General Conditions 10.00%155,199.40$ $176,126.71
Bond 1.50%23,279.91$ $26,419.01
Insurance 1.25%19,399.93$ $22,015.84
Subtotal 1,749,873.24$ $1,985,828.66
Fees (Contractor Overhead & Profit)10.00%174,987.32$ $198,582.87
Subtotal 1,924,860.56$ $2,184,411.52
Contingencies (Design)10.00%155,199.40$ $176,126.71
Contingencies (Construction)10.00%155,199.40$ $176,126.71
Escalation 3.00%46,559.82$ $52,838.01
Sub Total 2,281,819.18$ $2,589,502.95
Soft costs
Architectural Fees 200,000.00$ 200,000.00$ $245,000.00
Building Permit 45,000.00$ 45,000.00$ $48,000.00
SWPPP 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ $28,000.00
Special Inspections 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ $18,000.00
SubTotal 285,000.00$ $339,000.00
GRAND TOTAL VERSION 1 2,566,819.18$
GRAND TOTAL VERSION 2 $2,928,502.95
QUANTITY
Division 33- Utilities
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Gilroy Center for the Arts CE (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design Options for the Gilroy Center for the Arts)
R e m o d e l & P o s s i b l e A d d i t i o n
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Aerial View
Monterey Road W 7th Street Grass Field Gourmet Alley
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Site Plan
•2 separate parking lots
•36 existing parking stalls
•Angled stalls at planter do not meet
current codes
•ADA parking is too far from main entry
requiring public sidewalk to access to
facility
Monterey Road 7th Street Gourmet Alley 6th Street 9.B.c
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Existing Floor Plan
•Accommodates 14 Tables
•89 SF of storage
•Insufficient number of plumbing fixtures for
occupancy
•No ADA access to platform
•No plumbing at concession area
•No classroom space
•No lockable tech booth
•No secured stage area
•Not able to use the space for multiple events
at the same time
7th Street Parking Lot Grass Field Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Floor Plan Version 1
•Accommodates 23+ Tables
•300+ SF of storage and full height storage cabinets
•ADA ramps to access platform
•New concession area with sink , dishwasher, refrigerator
and dedicated storage
•Classroom space with sink
•Lockable tech booth
•Vestibule to help control natural light
•New code compliant ADA accessible restrooms,
janitorial closet and drinking fountain
•Bifold door with white board & projection capabilities to
secure back stage area and allow main space to be used
for multiple events
7th Street Parking Lot Monterey Road
Gourmet Alley Grass Field 9.B.c
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Floor Plan Version 2
•Includes all upgrades included in Version 1
•Adds new 650 SF addition to front of
building- as a entry lobby and can include the
gift shop and exhibition space as well as
ticketing
Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road Grass Field 7th Street Parking Lot 9.B.c
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Site Plan
•2 ADA stalls located at entry
•Good circulation
•Added sidewalk along building
•Added landscaping throughout
•Enlarged patio space
•Added paving along Gourmet
Alley
7th Street Grass Field Gourmet Alley
Monterey Road
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Concept and Materials
•Wire mounted frames and light fixtures for
flexibility
•Industrial style finishes
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
Thank you!
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: GAA Presentation1 (1644 : Presentation of Proposed Conceptual Design
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Review of the Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management (Traffic
Calming) Program
Meeting Date: May 21, 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
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Public safety is a priority of the City Council. In response to the community’s interest for
traffic calming measures the City Council directed staff to develop a city-wide traffic
calming policy. Staff has been reviewing sites, analyzing potential solutions versus
available resources, other pending neighborhood requests, and factors such as uniform
treatment throughout the City, etc. Often residents have been frustrated at the rate of
the review and at the perceived lack of attention. A formal policy that addresses the
following has been missing:
1) Education/Information – so staff and residents can communicate about the needs
and the solutions in a more uniform manner;
9.C
Packet Pg. 282
2) Traffic Calming Metrics (well defined traffic calming criteria and thresholds) - so
residents can understand how their neighborhood may qualify for traffic calming
measures, and what may be involved in traffic calming;
3) Clearly Defined Process – so citizens know and understand the initial and
subsequent steps in the traffic management process.
A draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) (Exhibit A) has been
prepared and is presented for Council’s review and feedback.
POLICY DISCUSSION
Currently the City of Gilroy does not have a policy in place regarding citywide traffic
calming approaches and measures. In general, a Citywide Traffic Calming Policy is
adopted in response to concerns over neighborhood traffic safety and neighborhood
livability. Given the increasing volume of traffic and the need to balance traffic capacity
with vehicular safety, it is important to adopt a citywide Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program (NTMP).
Due to the variations in and frequency of requests for neighborhood traffic calming
measures, City staff, under the direction of Council, has developed a proposed draft
citywide Traffic Calming Policy for Council consideration. This document is based on
feedback received on the draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP)
framework.
BACKGROUND
Neighborhood Traffic Management is comprised of the “3 E’s”; Education, Enforcement,
and Engineering. Traffic calming is the engineering leg of this traffic management
triangle. The Institute of Transportation Engineers, an international educational and
scientific association of transportation professionals, defines traffic calming as follows:
“Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the
negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve
conditions for non-motorized street users (bicyclists, pedestrians, etc…).”
The purpose of traffic calming is to alter a driver’s behavior, either by forcing a vehicle to
slow or to use an alternative route, through the use of engineering solutions and /or the
installation of physical devices. Our NTMP consists of two types of devices; Phase I
and Phase II devices. Phase I measures can be implemented on any public City street.
This category consists of easy to implement, low cost, and often less controversial tools
such as: neighborhood traffic safety campaigns, radar speed display units, targeted
police enforcement, most sign installations (excluding stop signs and turn-prohibition
signs), and pavement striping changes. Because these measures are less controversial,
9.C
Packet Pg. 283
staff will have discretion for implementation, and neighborhood consensus building,
while not required, may be undertaken by staff if appropriate.
Phase 2 measures alter the configuration of streets, impede traffic flow, change travel
patterns and can be very controversial. These measures are also considerably more
expensive than Phase 1 measures. Because Phase 2 measures are designed to alter
travel patterns and/or impede traffic flow, they require significant engineering study,
community acceptance, and City Council approval prior to installation. For this reason,
they are not appropriate for all City streets.
The draft NTMP allows Phase 1 measures to be installed on all City streets; including
arterial, collector and local streets. Phase 2 measures are allowed on local streets and
on collector streets in certain circumstances and conditions. Speed control devices,
such as speed cushions, do not cause significant diversion, but are effective at reducing
speeding. Therefore, they will be considered for use on collector streets so long as they
do not cause a delay to the delivery of emergency services, and are approved by the
Fire and Police Departments at the recommended location.
In general, all the following general criteria must be met to consider the installation of
any Phase 2 traffic calming measure:
The street must be residential in nature, and be classified as a local street or
collector street.
The street must not be a bus route, used by a VTA bus route, or identified as an
arterial in the City of Gilroy General Plan.
An appropriate street location for the device(s) shall be available.
A majority of the impacted residents or businesses must support the installation,
with higher response rates and support rates on the streets where the traffic
calming devices are proposed.
Installation must not result in traffic diversions to other neighborhood streets.
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCEDURES
The traffic calming process begins with a specific request to the Public Works
Department from a neighborhood resident by letter, phone call, or email. After
determining the nature of the request, City staff will undertake the following procedure:
1. Forward a copy of the City’s adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program to the resident and ask the resident to file a traffic calming request form.
2. After receipt of the completed form, staff will review the street in question, collect
traffic counts, analyze reported collisions over the past three years, and conduct
an analysis of the current traffic conditions.
9.C
Packet Pg. 284
3. If the traffic analysis indicates that no traffic calming thresholds were met (speed,
volume or collisions), staff may recommend the installation of Phase 1 traffic
calming improvements to address the resident’s concerns. The requesting party
will be notified of the results of the traffic analysis and the installation of any
recommended improvements. The resident must wait a minimum of one year to
again request traffic calming improvements.
4. If the traffic analysis indicates that one or more traffic calming thresholds are met,
staff will identify and install appropriate Phase 1 devices in the area of concern.
The requesting party will be notified of the results of the traffic analysis and the
recommended improvements to be installed.
5. Following a period of time for traffic to normalize given the installation of the
Phase 1 improvements (usually 1 to 3 months), staff will conduct a follow-up
traffic analysis to determine if the traffic calming thresholds are still being met. If
the resident’s concerns are abated through the use of Phase 1 traffic calming
measures during this trial phase, no further action is then necessary.
6. If one or more traffic calming thresholds are met, City staff will rank the
neighborhood based on a priority ranking system and place the neighborhood
into a priority list with other ranked neighborhoods.
7. Once the neighborhood is at the top of the priority list, the traffic calming
neighborhood support process is initiated with a petition circulated by the
requesting resident.
8. If the petition process is successful, City staff conducts additional traffic analysis
to determine if any of the other streets within the defined traffic calming study
area meet the thresholds for Phase 2 traffic calming devices. Only those streets
that meet the thresholds are eligible for the installation of physical Phase 2 traffic
calming devices. Phase 1 improvements may be applied to non-qualifying streets
within the study area.
9. When the data has successfully been collected and analyzed, a neighborhood
meeting is conducted. At this first outreach meeting, staff will introduce the
concepts of Neighborhood Traffic Management, various traffic calming concepts
including the functions of various traffic calming devices, provide an overview of
the process with associated timelines, and address an y questions. Through this
meeting, staff will identify the significant traffic calming interests of the
neighborhood.
10. With the interests of the neighborhood identified, staff will then develop a traffic
calming plan to address those issues. Staff will use engineering judgement to
9.C
Packet Pg. 285
determine the most efficient devices, and the most effective placement, to
address the neighborhood issues.
11. The plan will then be circulated internally for review by various City departments
that may have an interest in the elements of the program. This will include the
Police Department, Fire Department, Planning Division, and the Public Works
Maintenance Division. Comments from these groups will be addressed as
necessary.
12. Once the traffic calming plan has been approved by all interested City
departments, a second neighborhood meeting is scheduled to introduce the plan
and answer any questions. Based on the comments obtained from the meeting
regarding the draft traffic calming plan, Public Works staff may elect to revise the
plan accordingly and request a subsequent review from all affected City
departments, or decide to move forward if the comments are not substantive.
13. As the final stage in the public outreach process, the affected streets within the
traffic calming neighborhood are polled using a mailed secret ballot to determine
support for the Phase 2 traffic calming plan.
14. The results of the traffic calming survey are then summarized in a staff report and
presented to the City Council for consideration. Notice of the meeting is provided
to the traffic calming neighborhood area, and the meeting is posted through our
social media outlets.
15. During each budget cycle, approved programs will be placed into the City’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and funding will be requested from the City
Council. Staff will recommend approved programs on a prioritized basis using
the priority ranking system. Any approved program that does not receive Council
approval for implementation funding will have to compete with approved projects
requesting funding during the next budget funding cycle.
TRAFFIC CALMING TIMELINE
The development and implementation of a n eighborhood traffic calming program can
take a considerable amount of time. The timing of events varies considerably from case
to case. Considerations that affect program timing include:
Level of community interest in the program, and number of requests
Size of area and complexity of plan alternatives,
Time necessary to obtain required petition signatures,
9.C
Packet Pg. 286
Difficulty in scheduling community meetings,
Scale and complexity of final design and construction contract requirements,
Funding availability,
Weather effects on construction season, and
Competing demands on staff resources.
Although it is conceivable that a relatively simple project could be completed in as little
as 12 months from qualifying petition to installation, as a practical matter, project
duration in excess of 18 months to two years would not be uncommon.
FISCAL IMPACT
At this time, staff time to process traffic calming requests and develop traffic calming
programs will be funded out of the Public Works Engineering operating budget.
Addressing traffic calming requests and working with the community to develop plans
that address their concerns can be costly and take an extended period of time. It would
not be uncommon for a single request to take 50–100 hours or more of staff time to fully
develop and implement a neighborhood traffic calming plan. It would also not be
uncommon for a single neighborhood traffic calming plan to include between $100,000
and $500,000, or more, in improvement costs.
At this time there is no dedicated funding for this program. It is recommended that a
separate traffic calming budget be established annually for staff processing of traffic
calming requests. Additional funding should also be identified annually for smaller
traffic calming plan improvement installations. For instance, installing three temporary
speed cushions along a roadway segment could cost as much as $30 ,000.
It is therefore recommended that council consider appropriating a budget in the amount
of $250,000 which will be used to pay for traffic calming studies as well as
implementation of measures; this budget could be evaluated annually based on the type
and number of traffic calming projects that will be undertaken.
The neighborhood Speed Watch Program will be managed by the Police Department
and utilize their VIP volunteers. They will be responsible for conducting field site
reviews and data collection to be used by the PD for targeted traffic enforcement needs
(stop sign violations, speeding vehicles, etc.). No additional cost is anticipated to the
City to administer a neighborhood Speed Watch Program using volunteers, other than
logistics and supplies.
CONCLUSION
Currently the City of Gilroy does not have a policy in place regarding a citywide traffic
calming approach and measures. Given the increasing volume of traffic and the need to
9.C
Packet Pg. 287
balance traffic capacity with vehicular safety, it is important to adopt a citywide
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). The Department of Public Works
has prepared a draft NTMP document based on input from City Council, and the Fire
and Police departments. Staff requests that the City Council review the draft
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program and provide comments to staff.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will modify the draft NTMP based on City Council comments and bring the final
document back to Council for adoption.
Attachments:
1. Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined)
9.C
Packet Pg. 288
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 1
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
Prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants Inc., with input from:
Gilroy City Council
Gilroy Public Works
Gilroy Police Department
Gilroy Fire Department
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 2
Acknowledgment
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................5
1.1. DEFINING THE PROBLEM ...........................................................................................................5
1.2. TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT............................................................................6
1.3. PURPOSES OF THIS DOCUMENT .................................................................................................6
1.4. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .................................................................................6
1.5. GOALS OF THE NTMP ................................................................................................................7
1.6. BALANCING THE E’S: EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT AND ENGINEERING ........................................7
1.7. TRAFFIC CALMING IN GILROY ....................................................................................................8
1.8. LIVING DOCUMENT ...................................................................................................................9
2. TRAFFIC CALMING ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.1. DEFINITION OF A “TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY AREA” ................................................................. 11
2.2. STREETS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PHASE 2 TRAFFIC CALMING ............................................................ 11
2.3. TRAFFIC CALMING CRITERIA .................................................................................................... 13
2.4. PROGRAM THRESHOLDS ......................................................................................................... 18
2.5. MEASUREMENT CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 19
2.6. CEQA REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN ............................................................................... 19
2.7. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN ........................................ 19
3. TRAFFIC CALMING PROCEDURES ................................................................................................ 20
3.1. PROCESS INITIATION ............................................................................................................... 20
3.2. PRIORITIZING TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS ............................................................................ 21
3.3. NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT PROCESS ....................................................................................... 22
3.4. PHASE 2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 22
3.5. SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.6. TRAFFIC CALMING BUDGET ..................................................................................................... 25
3.7. DEVICE REMOVAL ................................................................................................................... 25
TABLES AND FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC CALMING TOOL BOX ....................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC OUTREACH BROCHURE ... 50
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 4
Table 1: Summary of Typical Traffic Calming Measures ............................................................ 27
Figure 1: Gilroy General Plan Functional Street Classification ................................................... 29
Figure 2: Gilroy Truck Routes ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3: Gilroy VTA Route Map ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 4: Portland Impact Threshold Curve ................................................................................. 32
Figure 5: Traffic Circle and Roundabout Criteria ......................................................................... 33
Figure 6: Traffic Calming Procedure ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 7: Traffic Calming Procedure Timeline ............................................................................ 35
Figure 8: Traffic Calming Request Form...................................................................................... 36
Figure 9: Neighborhood Petition Form (Prepared by Staff) ......................................................... 37
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 5
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
It is the City of Gilroy’s policy to make residential streets as quiet and safe as possible. The
measures identified in this document are intended to slow down traffic and discourage through
traffic on residential streets, while keeping our neighborhoods accessible to police, fire,
ambulance services, and the residents of Gilroy.
One of the most persistent and emotional concerns raised by residents of Gilroy is speeding on
residential streets. Over past years, many requests have been received regarding excessive traffic
speeds and/or volumes. In many respects, the physical makeup of the street determines traffic
speeds. Wide streets encourage vehicles to speed where narrow streets tend to force drivers to
drive more cautiously at lower speed. Long stretches of streets encourage higher speeds.
Everyone would like to live on a quiet street where there is little traffic and all motorists drive
slowly. Nevertheless, the fact is we all must share our streets with our neighbors and other
people. Just as we need to drive by other people’s houses on other streets on our way to work,
school or shopping, other people need to use our street to get to work, school or shopping.
This document presents a programmatic approach to addressing these issues and is ultimately
aimed at making residential streets more livable by providing opportunities for neighborhoods to
participate in identifying and implementing solutions to their traffic concerns. The document also
provides for engineering solutions, in the form of traffic calming, as a supplement to the overall
neighborhood traffic mitigation efforts.
No single solution exists for the problem of speeding vehicles on all residential streets.
Therefore, many different traffic calming techniques have been developed. These techniques
range from the non-physical, such as radar display boards and selective police enforcement, to
physical techniques such as street chokers and neighborhood traffic circles. A discussion of the
major techniques is found within this document.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 6
A major component of traffic calming is a comprehensive citizen education/participation
campaign. A citizen education/participation campaign encourages the neighborhood to help
identify, and then take responsibility for the solution. Experience has shown that, except for rare
cases of cut through traffic, a majority of the speeding violations in a residential area are from
residents who live in the neighborhood itself.
Traffic calming techniques work best when incorporated into a "traffic calming" or
"neighborhood traffic management program." Successful programs include the planning process,
overall community participation and local authority support. Because residents are the main
initiators of traffic calming requests, they need to be part of the process as much as possible. By
developing a program early on that addresses neighborhood traffic calming concerns on an area
wide basis, it encourages citizens to become actively involved in the improvement process. This
way, the City and the neighborhood can work together to create more livable neighborhoods.
1.2. TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
The City's Traffic Calming document was developed with input from various city departments.
These include: Police, Fire, and Public Works departments. Research into existing traffic
calming practices implemented by neighboring cities was first presented to the City Council on
May 15, 2017. Based on input from the public and the City Council, a traffic management plan
framework was drafted and presented to the City Council on November 6, 2017. This document
encompasses input from the public and the City Council on the plan framework. This document
represents the City’s attempt to produce a fair policy for all of Gilroy’s residents and apply these
policies and procedures in a consistent manner. This document/policy will be a “living
document” that continues to grow and change over time based on prevailing traffic conditions
and emerging technology and /or devices to best serve the residents of our City.
1.3. PURPOSES OF THIS DOCUMENT
The purposes of this document are to:
1. Provide educational opportunities for the public regarding neighborhood traffic
management issues and mitigation methods,
2. Develop criteria for the application of traffic calming devices,
3. Define a uniform process for handling neighborhood traffic concerns.
1.4. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
The City of Gilroy’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) encompasses an
overall approach to neighborhood traffic management through a balanced use of the three E’s –
Education, Enforcement and Engineering. A neighborhood traffic management approach will
allow Public Works staff to place greater emphasis on the education and awareness aspect of
traffic management while investigating alternative solutions to a neighborhood’s traffic
problems.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 7
1.5. GOALS OF THE NTMP
Neighborhood Livability: The primary goal of the NTMP is to improve neighborhood livability
through a comprehensive process that provides neighbors with the resources to reduce speeding,
reduce traffic volumes, and address other traffic related issues that concern them. The NTMP
focuses on residential streets with the goal of allowing children and families to feel more secure
in their own neighborhoods.
Citizen Participation and Education: This goal strives to provide an educational forum where
residents can be actively involved in evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of traffic
management efforts. Through the NTMP process, residents can obtain an understanding of traffic
calming and traffic safety techniques available in the program.
Implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan: The NTMP also serves to
implement some of the goals and policies of the City’s current General Plan:
GOAL 12.a: A functional and balanced transportation system that provides access for
all, is compatible with existing and proposed land uses, and minimizes emissions of air
pollutants.
POLICIES:
12.02: System Function and Neighborhood Protection. Ensure that the existing and
proposed highways, streets, bikeways and pedestrian paths serve the functions they are intended
to serve, while protecting the character of residential neighborhoods.
12.03: Residential Street System Design. Design street systems in residential areas to
encourage direct connections between neighborhoods; to encourage internal movement by
bicycling and walking; and to provide safer and quieter neighborhoods.
1.6. BALANCING THE E’S: EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT AND
ENGINEERING
Education, enforcement and engineering – the “3 E’s” – are commonly accepted elements
needed for the successful implementation of a neighborhood traffic management program. The
experience of other similar programs has shown that use of only one of these E’s, without the
other two, often generates a less than satisfactory result. This NTMP process takes an approach
which incorporates all three elements.
Education: Residents will be able to work with City staff through a variety of outlets to
make informed decisions about neighborhood traffic concerns and ways to positively
influence driver behavior. Educational aspects of the NTMP may include a neighborhood
educational forum or other outreach opportunities.
An education approach will allow City staff to work with specific groups to target specific
concerns in a way that is currently not considered under the current traffic calming program.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 8
This approach may be able to specifically address a concern without embarking on a costly
and time consuming process.
Enforcement: Some strategies can be put into effect through targeted police enforcement to
increase community awareness of speeding problems. The police department is committed to
utilizing its available resources to respond to areas experiencing traffic problems as identified
by resident concerns and conditions observed by enforcement officers.
Engineering: As the engineering component of a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program, traffic calming strategies, involving physical features, can be developed using a
combination of sound engineering principles and community input.
It is important for neighborhoods participating in the NTMP to recognize that traffic concerns
stem from a variety of sources and that the most appropriate solution may not be an engineering
one. Elements of the other “E’s” such as education and enforcement are equally valuable and are
viable traffic calming measures that can be implemented in a neighborhood.
1.7. TRAFFIC CALMING IN GILROY
WHAT IS TRAFFIC CALMING?
Traffic calming began in Europe around 1970 and has grown from a non-traditional approach to
a widely adopted method of reducing traffic problems on residential streets. The term “traffic
calming” is defined differently throughout the United States. The Institute of Transportation
Engineers, an international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals,
defines traffic calming as follows:
“Traffic calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-
motorized street users (bicyclists, pedestrians, etc…).”
The purpose of traffic calming is to alter a driver’s behavior, either by forcing a vehicle to slow
or to use an alternative route, through the use of engineering solutions and the installation of
physical devices.
WHAT ARE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES?
Neighborhood traffic calming measures attempt to address potential speeding and/or cut-through
traffic issues and preserve neighborhood character and livability. Each device has its own
characteristic effects on traffic flow. The primary effects produced by these controls fall into the
broad categories of speed reduction, traffic volume reduction, increased driver awareness, and
increased safety.
The success of traffic calming measures depends on their use in locations and situations for
which they are most effective. When appropriately implemented, they tend to be effective and
self-enforcing. When implemented inappropriately, they tend to be excessively violated unless
aggressive enforcement efforts are made. The City’s enforcement resources are always in high
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 9
demand, and it cannot be assumed that there will be resources available to provide aggressive
enforcement of new traffic controls.
1.8. LIVING DOCUMENT
The contents of this document include tools for use by citizens, Public Works staff, and other
interested parties to help develop effective traffic mitigation plans that adequately accommodate
motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, while enhancing the neighborhood environment.
To be sure the most current industry-wide information and tools are available to the program
users, this document shall be considered a “living document”. It may be updated from time to
time as new neighborhood traffic management and traffic calming techniques are developed and
tested, and the City and neighborhoods continue to gain more experience with the program.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 10
2. TRAFFIC CALMING
The City receives many requests, complaints, and suggestions from residents regarding
neighborhood traffic issues. City staff typically addresses these concerns by improving lane
markings, clarifying or adding signs, increasing police enforcement, etc. Often, these solutions
can successfully abate the neighborhood’s concern. In some cases, however, the traffic problems
experienced in a neighborhood are more chronic (excessive speeding or short-cutting) and may
require more permanent, engineered solutions. Generally, it is the City’s philosophy that traffic
calming measures be applied to keep non-neighborhood traffic off neighborhood streets.
However, this traffic must be accommodated somewhere. In most cases, this means more traffic
would be diverted to arterials and collectors because these are the streets designed to carry non-
neighborhood traffic. Ultimately, the City must balance neighborhood traffic concerns (speeds
and volume of traffic) with overall mobility (travel times and level of service).
All streets are eligible for some type of traffic calming measures. However, some measures are
more appropriate on certain types of streets than on others. For instance, imagine residents on
10th Street requesting speed cushions to reduce traffic speeds in front of their residences. This
measure would severely limit the capacity of the roadway, create significant traffic congestion,
cause traffic diversions onto adjacent residential streets and increase the travel times for
thousands of commuters every day. This example may appear extreme, but it is useful in
demonstrating that some traffic calming measures are not appropriate for some streets. For this
reason, an important distinction must be made between streets eligible for certain devices and
those not eligible.
To this end, the City of Gilroy has established two categories of traffic calming measures:
Phase 1 measures can be implemented on any public City street. This category consists of easy
to implement, low cost, and often less controversial tools such as: neighborhood traffic safety
campaigns, radar speed display units, targeted police enforcement, most sign installations
(excluding stop signs and turn-prohibition signs), and pavement striping changes. Because these
measures are less involved, they can be implemented at the discretion of City staff, and do not
require neighborhood consensus building.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 11
Phase 2 measures alter the configuration of streets, impede traffic flow, change travel patterns
and can be very controversial. These measures are also considerably more expensive than Phase
1 measures. Because Phase 2 measures are designed to alter travel patterns and/or impede traffic
flow, they require significant engineering study and community acceptance prior to installation.
For this reason, they are not appropriate for all city streets. The streets eligible for Phase 2
measures are described in the following section. Phase 2 measures require the approval of the
City Council. Typical Phase 1 and Phase 2 measures are summarized on Table 1 and described in
detail in Appendix A. It is important to note that even through police enforcement is listed as a
Phase 1 measure, public safety officers are an integral part of any traffic calming program and
will be consulted regularly during a Phase 2 traffic calming study.
2.1. DEFINITION OF A “TRAFFIC CALMING STUDY AREA”
When conducting a Phase 2 traffic calming study, it is necessary to define the area that would be
affected/impacted by the installation of a Phase 2 device. There are many ways residents can be
affected by a device - they could drive on that street daily, the device may be located on their
street, or the device may divert traffic to their street. All residents that live on a neighborhood
street within the affected area that could potentially be impacted by the installation of Phase 2
devices must be notified and participate in any Phase 2 traffic calming study. This is what is
known as a “Traffic Calming Study Area.” These geographic areas are important because they
become the limits of the notification area both when a study is being proposed (the petition
process) and when a study is underway (the notification and survey processes). Traffic calming
study areas will be defined by the Public Works Director prior to beginning the petition process.
Typically, a traffic calming study area is defined using arterial and/or collector streets as
boundaries. Sometimes, however, neighborhoods do not have appropriate arterial or collector
border streets that can be identified. This results in larger traffic calming neighborhoods than is
necessary. Therefore, Public Works staff will use engineering judgment to size the traffic
calming neighborhood appropriately for the neighborhood area being considered given the
neighborhood street layout and geometrics. In essence, traffic calming study areas are confined
only to neighborhood streets that would be affected by the installation of Phase 2 measures.
2.2. STREETS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PHASE 2 TRAFFIC CALMING
The City of Gilroy exempts three categories of public streets from Phase 2 traffic calming:
Streets designated as “Arterials” in the City of Gilroy General Plan,
Streets used as bus routes, and
Streets used as truck routes.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 12
GENERAL PLAN ARTERIALS
Phase 2 traffic calming measures are intended for use on neighborhood streets that are not
designated in the City of Gilroy General Plan as Arterials for circulation purposes (see Figure 1).
The function of a neighborhood street is fundamentally different from that of an arterial, where
the main priority is the efficient movement of through traffic during peak hours. On
neighborhood streets, efficiency is much less of a concern because of the limited traffic demand.
Instead, the primary concern is livability. Permitting Phase 2 traffic calming devices on arterial
streets would undermine the effectiveness of the proposed traffic calming policies and
procedures. The purpose of the Phase 2 measures is to change driving behavior within residential
areas and to discourage the use of local streets by through traffic. For a residential traffic calming
program to be successful, it is essential that arterial streets be defined, designed and maintained
for through traffic. Sufficient capacity and appropriate operating conditions must be maintained
on these more heavily traveled streets so that traffic is not forced onto local streets and into
residential areas. Thus, it can be stated that the purpose of Phase 2 traffic calming, which is often
to reduce traffic volumes and/or speeds, is inconsistent with the primary function of arterial
streets.
GENERAL PLAN COLLECTORS
Collector streets are designated to serve as the intermediate routes connecting local streets to
arterial streets. Traffic calming devices designed to address volume concerns are thus
inappropriate for collector streets as they would create unwanted traffic diversions onto nearby
local streets. Traffic calming devices designed to address speed concerns may be considered on
collector streets provided they meet specific criteria. Device installation on collector streets
should not cause diversion to adjacent parallel streets. If there is a potential for this, streets
parallel to the collector street must also be addressed with implementation of the neighborhood
traffic calming plan.
TRUCK ROUTES
The City of Gilroy does not have designated truck routes within the current General Plan.
However, there are streets within the City of Gilroy that are frequented by trucks. Future General
Plan updates may include designated truck routes. These streets have design features to
accommodate the special demands of truck traffic. For this reason, these streets are often wider
than their counterparts and are constructed with higher load bearing pavement sections. Any
attempt to divert truck traffic away from these streets would result in an increased number of
trucks on local streets. This could cause pavement damage, unsafe conditions for motor vehicles,
and complaints from the surrounding residences and businesses. Truck routes are mostly
comprised of arterial and collector streets and are listed below:
US 101
SR 152 (First Street)
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 13
Monterey Road – north of First Street, south of Tenth Street
Leavesley Road – Monterey Street to US 101
Railroad Street – Old Gilroy Street to Lewis Street
Old Gilroy Street – Railroad Street to Alexander Street
Alexander Street – Old Gilroy Street to Tenth Street
Chestnut Street – Luchessa Avenue to Tenth Street
Luchessa Avenue – Monterey Road to Mayock Road
These current truck routes, or future General Plan-designated truck routes, are unsuitable for
Phase 2 traffic calming devices (see Figure 2).
BUS ROUTES
Streets used by the VTA bus system are not eligible for most Phase 2 traffic calming devices.
Specifically, those devices that would cause a vertical displacement of the bus (speed cushions
and raised surfaces), or devices that would impede the ability of a bus to maneuver (barriers,
closures, diverters, and circles) would not be permitted on a designated bus route. Since Phase 2
measures impede traffic flow, they would either divert or significantly slow buses, thereby
lengthening travel times for bus passengers. Over the long-term, it is counter-productive to create
inefficiencies in the local transit system (which encourages the use of single occupant vehicles)
while simultaneously attempting to remove automobile traffic from neighborhoods. In addition
to increased travel times, traffic calming measures such as speed cushions can result in increased
bus maintenance costs and cause significant discomfort for passengers. For these reasons, it is
important to promote transit ridership by maintaining unobstructed routes and promoting transit
efficiency. VTA bus routes in Gilroy are shown graphically in Figure 3. In most cases, these
routes are located on arterial and collector streets.
2.3. TRAFFIC CALMING CRITERIA
CRITERIA FOR PHASE 1 MEASURES
All streets qualify for Phase 1 traffic calming measures. In order to ensure that expensive Phase 2
measures are installed only where necessary, it is City of Gilroy’s policy to exhaust all applicable
Phase 1 traffic calming measures before applying Phase 2 measures. Because Phase 1 measures
are non-controversial and relatively inexpensive, they can be implemented at the discretion of the
Public Works Director and do not require public outreach. This allows City staff to respond
quickly to neighborhoods where chronic traffic problems exist.
CRITERIA FOR PHASE 2 MEASURES
Phase 2 measures may result in significant consequences beyond the street in question. For this
reason, the City of Gilroy has developed special minimum criteria for the installation of Phase 2
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 14
measures. Changes in these criteria are subject to approval from the City Council. These are
described in the next section.
The City of Gilroy does not recognize stop sign installations as a traffic calming measure. Stop
signs should be installed per standards and specifications outlined in the California Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), which provides uniform standards and
specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. Per CA MUTCD, stop signs
should not be used for speed control. The City has a standard procedure for responding to stop
sign requests that is outside the purview of the NTMP.
GENERAL CRITERIA FOR ALL PHASE 2 MEASURES
ALL of following general criteria must be met to consider the installation of any Phase 2 traffic
calming measure:
The street must be residential in nature, and be classified as a local street or collector
street. (Note: Phase 2 measures to address speeding concerns are permitted on collector
streets. Phase 2 measures to address cut-through traffic are not permitted on collector
streets.)
The street must not be a bus route, used by a VTA bus route, or identified as an arterial in
the City of Gilroy General Plan.
An appropriate street location for the device(s) shall be available. Appropriate distance
from driveways, manholes, drain inlets, water valves, street monuments, fire hydrants,
and other appurtenances shall be considered. Devices shall be installed only where a
minimum safe stopping sight distance can be provided. Specific guidelines for speed
cushions and round-a-bouts are described later in this chapter.
A majority of the impacted residents or businesses must support the installation, with
higher response rates and support rates on the streets where the traffic calming devices
are proposed. This is measured from those who respond to a neighborhood survey. The
City will make a good faith effort to survey all impacted residents and property owners
within the traffic calming study area of the proposed Phase 2 traffic calming plan. The
boundaries of the affected areas as well as the identification of the impacted residents for
the survey will be determined by the Public Works Director.
Installation must not result in traffic diversions to other neighborhood streets greater than
what is allowed on the Portland Impact Threshold Curve (see Figure 4). The Portland
impact curve is designed to ensure that any traffic diversion from one neighborhood
street to another would be “non-noticeable,” with a couple caveats. It states that streets
with almost no daily traffic (100 or less daily trips) could see considerable percentage
increases and still have a livable neighborhood and streets that are already heavily
impacted by traffic (3,000 trips or more) should not have to deal with even more traffic.
Though a traffic calming neighborhood is addressed as a whole, engineering judgment
must be used when identifying when to use physical traffic calming devices. Thus, unless
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 15
determined otherwise, only those streets within the neighborhood that meet the Phase 2
thresholds may be considered for physical traffic calming devices. Other streets within
the neighborhood may be treated with Phase 1, non-physical, devices.
These criteria are designed to ensure that those most affected by traffic calming measures are
supportive and that suitable locations for the devices exist. Please note that these are minimum
criteria. Satisfying the criteria does not necessarily mean that a device will be installed.
PHASE 2 – SPEED CONTROL CRITERIA
Traffic calming measures designed to reduce speeds include: speed cushions, round-a-
bouts/traffic circles, chokers, raised intersections, etc. In addition to the General criteria stated
for all Phase 2 measures, the following criterion must be met to consider the installation of Phase
2 measures intended to slow traffic speeds:
The 85th percentile speed on a residential or collector streets must be greater than 7 miles
per hour over the posted speed limit, or 70% of the measured traffic must exceed the
posted speed limit.
85th Percentile Speed – The 85th percentile speed is defined as, “the speed at or below which 85
percent of all vehicles are observed to travel under free-flowing conditions past a monitored
point.” Traffic Engineers use the 85th percentile speed as a standard to set the speed limit at a
safe speed, minimizing crashes and promoting uniform traffic flow along a corridor. It is
common for vehicles to exceed the posted speed limits on residential streets. Nationwide studies
have shown that the average 85th percentile speed on a residential street is 32 miles per hour, or
7 mph over the most commonly used posted speed limit of 25 mph.
70% Criteria – A recent study has shown that there is a direct correlation between the measured
85th percentile speed and the number of vehicles that are known to be exceeding the speed limit.
The results of the study indicate that roadways with the 85th percentile speed measured at 32
miles per hour roughly experience 70% of the measured vehicles exceeding the posted speed
limit of the roadway.
Therefore, a street would qualify for speed related traffic calming improvements if the measured
speed for any stretch of the street meets or exceeds either the “speed limit + 7 mph” threshold, or
the 70% threshold. Satisfying the criteria does not necessarily mean that a device will be
installed.
The City of Gilroy allows traffic calming measures designed to reduce speeds to be placed on
both local streets and collector streets. For collector streets, a six-month pilot period is required
prior to permanent placement of physical devices. City of Gilroy Public Works staff will conduct
a before-and-after study to determine whether the pilot device on the collector street is effective
in reducing the travel speed below the threshold. Permanent devices will be installed on collector
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 16
streets only if the pilot period proves that the device is effective. For this situation, effectiveness
occurs when the device reduces the 85th percentile speed below the “speed limit + 7 mph”
threshold, or 70% of vehicles no longer exceed the posted speed limit.
PHASE 2 – TRAFFIC DIVERSION CRITERIA
Traffic calming measures designed to create diversions include: turn restrictions, diverters,
median islands, etc. In addition to the General criteria stated for Phase 2 measures, the following
criteria must be met to consider the installation of Phase 2 measures intended to divert roadway
traffic:
The street must be classified as a “Local” street by the City of Gilroy General Plan.
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on the street must exceed 1,000 trips per day.
At least 25% of the daily traffic on a residential street must be “cut-through.”
Cut-through traffic is defined as traffic with neither an origin nor a destination within the
neighborhood that the street is designated to serve. The neighborhood area varies based on the
designation of the street. The neighborhood area used to identify cut-through traffic will be
determined by Public Works staff.
The 1,000 trips per day ADT threshold and the 25% “cut-through” threshold are based on
research of other cities in the Bay Area with similar traffic calming policies. These are minimum
criteria for screening eligible streets. Satisfying the criteria does not necessarily mean that a
device will be installed.
If a street has less than 1,000 daily trips, regardless of the origins and destinations of its traffic,
the City of Gilroy deems it is carrying a reasonable amount of traffic and does not qualify for
Phase 2 measures. The 25% “cut-through” criterion is designed to separate residential streets
that, by their design, will carry more than 1,000 daily trips. In these cases, it is important to
determine the percentage of traffic generated from within the neighborhood versus that which
“cuts-through” the neighborhood.
PHASE 2 – HIGH COLLISION RATE CRITERIA
Streets that experience high speeds also have a tendency to exhibit a high rate of vehicle
collisions. For this reason, collisions will be used to justify the installation of Phase 2 traffic
calming devices when either speed or volume thresholds are not met. For the collision criteria to
be met, the street segment in question must exhibit more than five (5) reported or documented
collisions within the past three years. These collisions must be considered preventable with the
implementation of Phase 2 traffic calming devices.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 17
ADDITIONAL PHASE 2 CRITERIA
A number of traffic calming improvements are identified in this document as Phase 2 devices.
They include physical improvements, both horizontal and vertical in nature, that either divert
traffic or cause vehicles to slow. It should be noted that no traffic calming program will be
permitted to incorporate any device that affects the ability of the Fire and/or Police Departments
to provide effective and efficient emergency services to the community. All traffic calming plans
will be reviewed by Fire and Police and specific devices approved on a case by case basis
depending on the programs effect on the delivery of emergency services.
Appendix A describes a number of these devices. Of the Phase 2 devices, the most commonly
used are the speed cushion and the traffic circle. These devices require further consideration in
addition to the general speed and diversion criteria. Below is a listing of the additional
considerations that must be met for the safe and successful installation of a speed cushion or
traffic circle.
ADDITIONAL PHASE 2 CONSIDERATIONS – SPEED CUSHIONS
In addition to the General and Speed Control criteria, the following guidelines should be
considered for the installation of speed cushions along with engineering judgment:
The street should have adequate existing curb and gutter on each side to prevent ponding
of water in the area of the speed cushion.
The affected street segment should be of an adequate length for a speed cushion to be
effectively installed. Typically, a minimum length of 300 - 500 feet is desirable.
Speed cushions shall not be installed on streets with posted speed limits greater than
thirty (30) miles per hour.
The first speed cushion in a series should be located in a position where it cannot be
approached at high speed in either direction. To achieve this, the first hump ideally
should be located approximately 200 feet from an intersection stop sign.
Where possible, speed cushions should not be placed on curves, but on tangent stretches
of roadway. However, in areas where placement on curves is unavoidable, proper
horizontal and vertical sight distance should be provided.
Speed cushions should be located at or near residential property lines and away from
driveways, when possible.
Speed cushions should be located near street lights to illuminate them for safe bike and
pedestrian activity at night.
Speed cushions should be accompanied by the appropriate advanced signage and street
markings.
Spacing between speed cushions should be as even as possible to produce uniform speed
along an entire street. Speed cushions in a series should be placed between 200 and 600
feet apart, which may vary depending on the length of the street segment where the
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 18
devices are placed. Typically, speed cushions are placed farther apart on longer segments
than shorter segments. Spacing should allow at least one speed cushion on each block.
The existence of Class II or Class III bicycle facilities should be taken into consideration
when placing speed cushions in a neighborhood.
As a practical matter, these guidelines cannot always be met. For this reason, these guidelines are
subject to review by the Public Works Director, who may modify these criteria in a particular
situation to achieve the desired result – the safe and effective application of the speed cushion(s).
ADDITIONAL PHASE 2 CONSIDERATIONS - TRAFFIC CIRCLES AND
ROUNDABOUTS
In addition to the General and Speed Control criteria, the following guidelines should be
considered for the installation of roundabouts and traffic circles along with engineering judgment
(see also Figure 5):
The intersection should be a minimum of 55 feet diagonally across (both directions,
measured from the curb face).
Crosswalks should be located a minimum of 12-feet from the interior circle (measured
from the curb face of the circle to the white stripe of the crosswalk).
The circle should allow for a minimum 22-foot wide travel lane for circulating traffic
(measured from the curb face of the interior circle to the curb return).
The interior diameter of the circle should be a minimum of 10 feet (measured curb face to
curb face).
Traffic circles should not be used in conjunction with stop signs at a given location.
The intersection should meet minimum approach volume criteria as prescribed by
established traffic engineering publications.
The circle should be installed with vertical curb when fire department, or large vehicle,
circulation is not affected. For other locations mountable, or rolled, curbs are preferred.
The circle should allow for proper sight distance across the intersection.
Existing utilities and access to maintenance facilities, such as manholes, should be
accommodated when determining what material is to be used within the traffic circle or
roundabout.
As a practical matter, these guidelines cannot always be met. For this reason, these guidelines are
subject to review by the Public Works Director, who may modify these criteria in a particular
situation to achieve the desired result – the safe and effective application of traffic circles and
roundabouts.
2.4. PROGRAM THRESHOLDS
Since distinct traffic calming devices are available to address either speed or volume issues
within a neighborhood, staff has the flexibility to use discretion on the exact threshold limits.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 19
Either threshold, either speed or diversion, may be used when developing a traffic calming
program to better pinpoint the concerns of a neighborhood and directly concentrate on a solution
to address the concern. Thus, a neighborhood that has speeding concerns, and which meets the
speed threshold, may develop a program that only includes speed control devices.
2.5. MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
Typically, mid-week traffic counts, when any nearby school is in session, will provide results
that show the highest values for speed and volume on a neighborhood street. Thus, to determine
the worst case for traffic on a neighborhood street, traffic counts will be collected for a three-day,
mid-week period when an adjacent school (if any) is in session.
2.6. CEQA REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
Depending on which Phase 2 traffic calming devices are used in a traffic calming plan, diversion
may occur on adjacent streets, or in adjacent neighborhoods. For programs where extensive
diversion is expected, an environmental and traffic mitigation study may be conducted in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council must
approve the environmental review document prior to the review and approval of the traffic
calming plan.
2.7. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC
CALMING PLAN
The City of Gilroy Fire Department and Police Department are supportive of the neighborhood
traffic management and traffic calming plan. However, it is also imperative that the timely
delivery of and accessibility of emergency services are maintained. All proposed Phase 2 traffic
calming devices will be reviewed by the Fire Department and Police Department to ensure they
are acceptable.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 20
3. TRAFFIC CALMING PROCEDURES
One of the primary interests in developing a neighborhood traffic calming policy is to provide a
clear structure for addressing the concerns of the city’s neighborhoods while spending an
appropriate amount of staff time to address neighborhood traffic concerns. Traffic concerns may
exist throughout an entire neighborhood or may be specific to a particular street, roadway
segment, or spot location. The process developed by the City of Gilroy allows for the timely
implementation of non-controversial Phase 1 traffic calming measures and a comprehensive
public outreach effort for requests of a more controversial nature. The overall traffic calming
process is outlined on Figure 6.
3.1. PROCESS INITIATION
The traffic calming process begins with a specific request to the Public Works Department from
a neighborhood resident by letter, phone call, or email. After determining the nature of the
request, City staff will undertake the following procedure:
1. Forward a copy of the city’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to the
resident and ask the resident to file a traffic calming request form (see Figure 8). This
will help staff understand the nature of the resident’s concern.
2. After receipt of the completed form, staff will review the street in question, collect
traffic counts, analyze reported collisions over the past three years, and conduct an
analysis of the current traffic conditions.
3. If the traffic analysis indicates that no traffic calming thresholds were met (speed,
volume or collisions), staff may recommend the installation of Phase 1 traffic calming
improvements to address the resident’s concerns. The requesting party will be
notified of the results of the traffic analysis and the installation of any recommended
improvements. The resident must wait a minimum of one year to again request traffic
calming improvements.
4. If the traffic analysis indicates that one or more traffic calming thresholds are met,
staff will identify and install appropriate Phase 1 devices in the area of concern. The
requesting party will be notified of the results of the traffic analysis and the
recommended improvements to be installed.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 21
5. Following a period of time for traffic to normalize given the installation of the Phase
1 improvements (usually 1 to 3 months), staff will conduct a follow-up traffic
analysis to determine if the traffic calming thresholds are still being met. If the
resident’s concerns are abated through the use of Phase 1 traffic calming measures
during this trial phase, no further action is then necessary. If this is done, the resident
must wait a minimum of one year to again request traffic calming improvements.
6. If one or more traffic calming thresholds are met, City staff will rank the
neighborhood based on a priority ranking system and place the neighborhood into a
priority list with other ranked neighborhoods.
7. Once the neighborhood is at the top of the priority list, the traffic calming
neighborhood support process is commenced as described below.
8. If the petition process is successful, City staff conducts additional traffic analysis to
determine if any of the other streets within the defined traffic calming study area meet
the thresholds for Phase 2 traffic calming devices. Only those streets that meet the
thresholds are eligible for the installation of physical Phase 2 traffic calming devices.
Phase 1 improvements may be applied to non-qualifying streets within the study area.
3.2. PRIORITIZING TRAFFIC CALMING REQUESTS
Due to funding and staffing concerns, all neighborhoods that meet Phase 2 traffic calming
thresholds will be placed into a priority list based on a priority ranking system. This is a common
approach used by many other cities in the Bay Area to efficiently utilize city resources to
prioritize projects so that neighborhoods with greater problems are addressed first. The priority
ranking system scores a neighborhood using the following metrics:
Criteria Point Value
Traffic Speed (85th Percentile Speed)
7 to 8.99 mph over the speed limit 2
9 to 10.99 mph over the speed limit 4
Above 11 mph over the speed limit 6
Cut-Through Traffic (% of ADT)
25% to 49.99% 2
50% to 74.99% 4
Over 75% 6
Accident History (# of accidents in last 3 years)
1 to 2 accidents 1
3 to 5 accidents 2
Over 6 accidents 4
Proximity to Parks, Schools (Public or Private, K-12)
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 22
Within ¼ mile 2
Between ¼ and ½ mile 1
3.3. NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT PROCESS
Traffic calming studies require considerable staff resources at taxpayer expense. For this reason,
it is important that a significant portion of the neighborhood supports the undertaking of a study.
The neighborhood support process is reserved for Phase 2 concerns that meet Speed Control,
Traffic Diversion, and/or Collision thresholds. Neighborhood endorsement is demonstrated
through a resident petition. These are described below.
TRAFFIC CALMING NEIGHBORHOOD DETERMINATION AND STUDY AREA
PETITION
The petition process is necessary to determine whether a resident’s concern is widespread. When
conducting a petition, City staff will work with the resident to define the traffic calming study
area, which becomes the designated notification area boundaries for all future contact with the
residents within the study area. Though the limits of the study area are determined through a
collaborative process with staff and the neighborhood, the Public Works Director shall make the
final determination of the traffic calming neighborhood boundary limits should the need arise.
The study area is typically bounded by arterials and collectors, but staff may use engineering
judgment to limit streets from the neighborhood that are far removed from the problem area or
would not by impacted by any proposed improvements. Staff will supply the resident with a
highlighted map identifying the limits of the petition area and a neighborhood-specific petition
form (see Figure 9).
It is the resident’s responsibility to collect signatures from as many residents and property
owners in the study area as possible. One signature is collected per property, except in the case
of multi-family residential buildings, where each tenant is allowed one signature per unique
address, in addition to that of the property owner. A petition is deemed successful if more than
60% of the eligible signees within the designated traffic calming study area sign the petition, and
the petition is returned within one month.
3.4. PHASE 2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
OUTREACH AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City of Gilroy recognizes that resident participation is a critical element of the Phase 2 plan
development. For this reason, staff will conduct an outreach forum inviting the residences and
businesses in the affected area to a neighborhood meeting to introduce traffic calming program
concepts.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 23
At the first outreach forum, staff will introduce the concepts of Neighborhood Traffic
Management, various traffic calming concepts including the functions of various traffic calming
devices, provide an overview of the process with associated timelines, and address any questions.
Through this meeting, staff will identify the significant traffic calming interests of the
neighborhood.
TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Based on the input received during the outreach forum, Public Works staff will develop a draft
neighborhood traffic calming plan to meet community needs and address their concerns. Staff
will use engineering judgment to determine the most efficient devices, and the most effective
placement, to address the neighborhood issues. Every effort will be made to develop the traffic
calming program that addresses the neighborhood’s interests, while considering excessive device
and sign clutter. When placing devices within a neighborhood, staff will make every effort to
limit device impacts on driveways, and visual effects to the adjacent resident.
DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
The draft plan developed by Public Works staff must be reviewed by the various City
departments that may have an interest in the elements of the program. These departments
include:
Public Works Engineering – Evaluation of the traffic plan elements on the City right-of-
way, evaluation of any landscaping and irrigation contained within plan elements, and
review of the plan costs to determine if within available budget.
Planning Division – CEQA Evaluation (if necessary)
Police Department – Evaluation to determine if the plan elements can be implemented
without any detrimental effect to the delivery of emergency services.
Fire Department – Evaluation to determine if the plan elements can be implemented
without any detrimental effect to the delivery of emergency services.
Public Works Maintenance Division – Evaluation to determine plan’s effect on street
sweeping, access to utilities and/or maintenance facilities (manholes).
Through review of the plan by the various City departments, the following issues may be
considered by City staff and discussed with the program proponents:
Effectiveness of the selected traffic calming devices
Effects on the ability of Police and Fire to successfully provide emergency services to the
area
Noise impacts
Loss of parking
Liability exposure implications
Visual impacts and aesthetic concerns
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 24
Increased maintenance costs
Any comments on the traffic calming plan must be addressed through appropriate modification
to the traffic calming plan. The plan may not proceed forward unless supported by all interested
City departments.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO INTRODUCE TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
Once the traffic calming plan has been approved by all interested City departments, a second
neighborhood meeting is scheduled to introduce the plan and answer any questions. Based on the
comments obtained from the meeting regarding the draft traffic calming plan, Public Works staff
may elect to revise the plan accordingly and request a subsequent review from all affected City
departments, or decide to move forward if the comments are not substantive.
SURVEY OF NEIGHBORHOOD FOR PROGRAM SUPPORT
As the final stage in the public outreach process, the affected streets within the traffic calming
neighborhood are polled using a mailed secret ballot to determine support for the Phase 2 traffic
calming plan. Voting on a Phase 2 traffic calming plan shall be as follows:
One vote per single family residence
One vote per multi-family residence
One vote per apartment unit
One vote is allowed for each owner of property within the neighborhood who is a non-resident
(one vote regardless of the number of developed or undeveloped properties owned). The
neighborhood will have two weeks to return their ballots.
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN
The results of the traffic calming survey are then summarized in a staff report and presented to
the City Council for consideration. Notice of the meeting is provided to the traffic calming
neighborhood area, and the meeting is posted through our social media outlets.
For staff to recommend approval of the neighborhood traffic calming program, the following
survey results must be achieved:
The survey receives at least a 50% response rate
60% of those responding must approve the program
A significant majority of the properties within 100 feet of proposed device locations must
respond and vote to approve the program
Should the results of the traffic calming survey not meet the above criteria, staff will recommend
denial of the traffic calming program to the City Council.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 25
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PROGRAM FUNDING
During each budget cycle, approved programs will be placed into the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) and funding will be sought from the City Council. Staff will
recommend approved programs on a prioritized basis using the priority ranking system. Any
approved program that does not receive Council approval for implementation funding will have
to compete with other approved projects requesting funding during the next budget funding
cycle.
3.5. SCHEDULE
Neighborhood traffic calming studies do not lend themselves to predictable schedules. The
timing of events varies considerably from case to case. Considerations that affect program timing
include:
Level of community interest in the program, and number of requests
Size of area and complexity of plan alternatives,
Time necessary to obtain required petition signatures,
Difficulty in scheduling community meetings,
Scale and complexity of final design and construction contract requirements,
Funding availability,
Weather effects on construction season, and
Competing demands on staff resources.
Although it is conceivable that a relatively simple project could be completed in as little as 12
months from qualifying petition to installation, as a practical matter, a project duration in excess
of 18 months to two years would not be uncommon. Figure 6 shows an example schedule for
traffic calming measure installation.
3.6. TRAFFIC CALMING BUDGET
Funding for all costs related to the NTMP, including but not limited to data collection costs,
potential consultant costs, plan development, and device installation/removal costs will come
from the City of Gilroy General Fund.
3.7. DEVICE REMOVAL
The neighborhood must petition the City to have the devices removed. The ensuing process to
remove the devices would be very similar to the initial traffic calming program development in
terms of public outreach, engineering study, and neighborhood support. Should a neighborhood
successfully manage a request for removal of a traffic calming device through this process, the
device will be removed once funding becomes available.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 26
TABLES AND FIGURES
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 27
Table 1: Summary of Typical Traffic Calming Measures
Beneficial Effects Undesirable Effects
Method Phase
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increase
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increase
Street
Maintenance Potential Cost *
Community Outreach/Education 1 Possible Possible No No No No No Varies
Police Enforcement of Speed Limits 1 Yes Possible No No No No No Varies
Speed Display Units 1 Yes No No No No No No $ 250 per day
High Visibility Crosswalks 1 Possible No No Possible No No Yes $1,500 - $30,000
Speed Limit Signs 1 Possible No No No No No No $280 -$350
Narrow Lane Striping 1 Possible Possible No No No No Yes $1,500 - $3,000
Turn Restriction Signs ** 2 No Yes Possible No Yes No No $280 - $350
Curb Extensions*** 2 Yes Possible No Yes No Yes Possible $15,000 - $30,000
Speed Cushions**** 2 Yes Possible Yes Possible No Yes Yes $7,500
Traffic Circles & Round-a-bouts*** 2 Yes Possible No Yes No Yes Yes $35,000 - $115,000
Median Barriers*** 2 Possible Yes No Possible Yes Yes Possible $7,500 - $45,000
* These costs represent potential device construction and/or installation costs on a typical street. They do not include progra m development or CEQA review.
** Requires significant commitment of Police Department staff resources to enforce on a regular basi s to maintain effectiveness.
*** Cost does not include any long term maintenance of green infrastructure, landscaping or irrigation.
**** Speed cushions shall not be installed on streets with the posted speed limits greater than 30 MPH.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 28
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 29
Figure 1: Gilroy General Plan Functional Street Classification
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 30
Figure 2: Gilroy Truck Routes
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 31
Figure 3: Gilroy VTA Route Map
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 32
Figure 4: Portland Impact Threshold Curve
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 33
Figure 5: Traffic Circle and Roundabout Criteria
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 34
Initial
Request
(Traffic Calming
Request Form)
Initial Study &
Data Collection
Implementation
of Phase I
Improvement
Follow-Up
Studies and
Performance
Verification
Yes – Problem
Abated
No – Calming
Thresholds are
still met
Neighborhood
Ranked and
Placed on
Priority List
Neighborhood
Petition
Petition Not Met
– No Further
Action
Petition Met –
Traffic Analysis
and Define Study
Area for Phase II
Outreach and
Public
Participation
Traffic Calming
Plan
Development
Department
Review
Neighborhood
Meeting
Neighborhood
Survey for
Program Support
City Council
Review and
Approval
Figure 6: Traffic Calming Procedure
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 35
Figure 7: Traffic Calming Procedure Timeline
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 36
Figure 8: Traffic Calming Request Form
The purpose of this form is to enable neighborhoods to request the possible initiation of
a traffic calming study in accordance with the City of Gilroy’s Neighborhood Traffic
Management program. The form must be filled out in its entirety and submitted to:
The City of Gilroy
Public Works Department
Attn: City Engineer
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Feel free to attach additional sheets containing pictures, maps, or additional text if the
space provided is insufficient.
1. Requesting Individual’s Contact Information
Name: ____________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________
Phone Number: _______________________________________
Email: _______________________________________
2. Please describe the location of the traffic concern (feel free to draw a picture or
attach a map):
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
3. Please describe the nature of the neighborhood traffic problem you are
concerned with (attach additional sheets if necessary):
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
4. Please describe what changes you would like to see on your stree t and/or what
traffic calming measures would be acceptable to you:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 37
Figure 9: Neighborhood Petition Form (Prepared by Staff)
City of Gilroy
Petition for Neighborhood Traffic Calming Measures
THE UNDERSIGNED BELOW AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING:
1. All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside within the impacted area,
which is hereby defined as the street segments of (also see attached map):
This Section is Prepared by Staff
2. All persons signing this petition request that the City of Gilroy investigate the possibility of
installing physical traffic calming devices on my street in this neighborhood:
This Section is Prepared by Staff
3. All persons signing this petition do hereby agree that the following contact person(s)
represent the neighborhood as facilitator(s) between the neighborhood residents and City of
Gilroy staff in matters pertaining to items 1 and 2 above:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Name:
Address:
Phone:
ONLY ONE SIGNATURE PER ADDRESS
Name Address Phone # Signature
Name Address Phone # Signature
Name Address Phone # Signature
Name Address Phone # Signature
Name Address Phone # Signature
Name Address Phone # Signature
[Note: Attach additional sheets as necessary]
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 38
Appendix A: Traffic Calming Tool Box
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 39
Community Outreach/Education
Phase 1
Description: Community outreach involves
neighborhood awareness and education
campaigns on traffic and traffic safety issues.
Campaigns can consist of neighborhood
meetings, written correspondence, school
safety workshops, or other programs that help
inform and educate the public.
Studies have generally shown that people
speeding in neighborhoods tend to be local
residents.
Advantages Disadvantages
Provides a forum for residents to discuss
their concerns.
Helps city staff and neighborhood
representatives identify traffic problems in
the community.
Educates the community on traffic calming.
Cultural and language barriers
may dissuade resident
participation.
Potentially time consuming.
Special Considerations
Neighborhood meetings are typically held in convenient locations and during after-
work hours.
The meetings are intended to promote discussion among residents and city staff.
When necessary, interpreters should be provided.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Possible Possible No No No No No
Objective: To educate and inform the community of traffic calming measures and traffic
safety in their neighborhoods.
Potential Cost: Varies.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 40
Police Enforcement of Speed Limits
Phase 1
Description: The police department
deploys officers to target neighborhood
streets with reported speeding problems.
Advantages Disadvantages
Increases driver awareness.
Targets speeding areas.
Can reduce speeding occurrences.
Highest impact on speeding offenders.
Can be implemented immediately.
Provides Police enforcement visibility in
neighborhood
Long term beneficial impacts may
diminish if not regularly enforced.
Requires frequent police presence,
which may not be feasible.
Special Considerations
Requires frequent enforcement to be successful.
Police units may not be readily available.
Often beneficial in school zones.
Typically, only streets with documented speeding problems should be monitored.
May be used in combination with recently implemented control devices.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Yes Possible No No No No No
Objective: To increase driver awareness of speed limits through police enforcement.
Potential Cost: Varies.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 41
Speed Display Units
Phase 1
Description: A radar unit that displays the speed limit and
motorists’ actual speeds. May be movable or permanent.
Advantages Disadvantages
Increases driver awareness of their
actual speeds.
Can be implemented immediately.
Conveys illusion of police presence.
Limited effectiveness.
Display units must be relocated weekly.
Not a substitute for Police enforcement.
Special Considerations
Can cause motorists to speed up to register a higher speed.
Not suitable for remote areas.
Usually not effective on high volume streets.
Helps alert drivers of their actual speed and provides an opportunity for drivers to
reduce speeds without being penalized.
Permanent units usually only considered around schools
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Yes No No No No No No
Objective: To reduce speeding by altering drivers of their actual speeds.
Potential Cost: Temporary units: $250 per day.
Permanent units: $10,000 per installation.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 42
High Visibility Crosswalks
Phase 1
Description: A crosswalk incorporating a striped
pattern that catches motorists’ attention. These
high-visibility crosswalks can also be placed mid-
block, but will require pedestrian-activated
beacons to alert drivers of crossing pedestrians.
Mid-block crosswalks should be placed only after
an engineering study.
Advantages Disadvantages
Increases crosswalk viability.
Could help to reduce speeds.
Indicates preferred crossing
location.
Could create a false sense of pedestrian
security.
Special Considerations
Pedestrian may ignore traffic and place a greater reliance on the crosswalk.
More difficult to maintain than regular crosswalks.
Should be well lit
Additional signage, markings and devices are required for mid -block crosswalks
While less expensive than raised crosswalks, they are less effective.
Not suitable for all locations.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Possible No No Possible No No Yes
Objective: To increase crosswalk visibility to drivers.
Potential Cost: $1,500 to $5,000 each. Mid-block crosswalks: $25,000 to $30,000
each.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 43
Speed Limit Signs and Legends
Phase 1
Description: Speed limit signs and legends installed on
residential streets.
Advantages Disadvantages
Can help reduce speeding if
enforced.
Clearly defines speed limit.
Acceptable by neighborhood.
Relatively inexpensive to install.
Can be ignored by motorists.
Requires on-going enforcement.
Added signage to neighborhood.
Special Considerations
An engineering analysis is needed to establish speed limits higher than 25 mph.
Requires enforcement to remain effective.
Motorists have a tendency to disregard unrealistically low speed limits.
Should be used only on streets with identified speeding problems.
Speed limit signs will not be posted less than 25 mph.
To provide additional device effectiveness, associated 25 mph legends can be
installed adjacent to sign locations.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Possible No No No No No No
Objective: To reinforce proper speeds on neighborhood streets.
Potential Cost: $280 to $350 per sign or legend.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 44
Narrow Lane Striping
Phase 1
Description: Narrowing lanes requires restriping the
pavement to reduce the width of the lanes (usually to
10 feet wide).
Advantages Disadvantages
May slow travel speeds.
Easy to modify and implement.
Edge striping may function as Class
II Bicycle Lanes
Increased maintenance costs and
frequency.
Adds striping to neighborhood streets.
May affect emergency response.
Special Considerations
The remaining portion of the road can be used to create bicycle or parking lanes.
Additional striping helps define neighborhood streets by adding centerlines and edge
lines.
Can be altered over time.
Possible to use as an intermediate Phase to more definite traffic control devices.
Most effective when there is sufficient opposing traffic.
Effectiveness dwindles as opposing traffic volume drops.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Possible Possible No No No No Yes
Objective: To slow vehicle speeds by narrowing traffic lanes.
Potential Cost: $1,500 to $3,000. Dependent on length of street.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 45
Turn Restriction Signs
Phase 2
Description: Turn restriction signs prohibit specified turn
movements on neighborhood streets. Examples of restrictive
signage include: “No Left Turns”, “No Right Turns”, or “Do Not
Enter”.
Advantages Disadvantages
Cost-effective method of reducing
cut-through traffic.
Redirects traffic to main streets
where higher traffic volumes are
acceptable.
Can be directed towards certain
times of the day.
Can reduce noise.
No increase to street maintenance.
Possible traffic diversion to other
neighborhood streets.
Success requires on-going
enforcement.
Adds signage to the neighborhood.
Limits access to the neighborhood.
Applies to all traffic, including
neighborhood traffic.
Special Considerations
Little or no effect on vehicle speeds.
Best when used on major or collector streets.
More effective when applied to certain peak hours.
May cause access impacts to neighborhood.
Possible diversion of traffic to other neighborhood streets.
Can be difficult to enforce in some areas.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
No Yes No No Yes No No
Objective: To reduce traffic volumes on neighborhood streets and redirect traffic to
main roadways.
Potential Cost: $280 - $350 per sign.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 46
Curb Extensions
Phase 2
Description: Curb extensions narrow a portion of the
roadway by extending a portion of the curb into the
street. Curb extensions are commonly referred to as
“bulb-outs”, which are at the entrance of a roadway,
and “chokers”, which are placed mid-segment. Curb
extensions also include “Chicanes”, which are a
series of alternating mid-segment extensions.
Advantages Disadvantages
Shorter pedestrian crossings.
Can decrease vehicle speeds
entering a narrowed roadway.
Creates an opportunity for
landscaping and green
infrastructure.
Allows better pedestrian visibility
around parked cars.
May require loss of on-street parking.
Can create a hazard for bicyclists.
May impede emergency response vehicles
and other trucks.
Increased maintenance.
Drainage can be a problem.
Special Considerations
Expensive to remove if permanent
Curb-extensions can be installed mid-block.
May require additional landscaping.
Can be expensive.
Curb-extensions should not extend into designated bicycle lanes.
At transit stops, curb-extensions enhance service.
Bulbouts need to be designed to accommodate emergency response vehicles,
larger vehicle and common truck turning path.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Yes Possible No Yes No Possible Possible
Objective: To reduce traffic speeds and reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicles.
Potential Cost: $15,000 to $30,000 per extension.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 47
Speed Cushions
Phase 2
Description: Speed cushions are asphalt mounds
constructed on the roadway surfaces. The City of Gilroy
uses speed cushions that are 4 inches high and have a
parabolic profile. Speed cushions differ from other raised
speed control devices (i.e. speed bump, speed hump, o r
speed table) because speed cushions typically have
wheel cutouts that allow unimpeded passage by
emergency vehicles. Most passenger cars have narrower
wheel bases than emergency vehicles and would not be
able to pass unimpeded through speed cushions.
Advantages Disadvantages
Effectively slow vehicles.
Can result in decrease of traffic
volumes.
Can improve pedestrian safety.
Are designed to accommodate
fire truck wheel base widths.
Increases noise near speed cushions.
May result in traffic diversion to other
neighborhood streets.
Device, signage and advanced striping
can be somewhat aesthetically
displeasing.
Possible problem for bikes.
Will affect passage of ambulances and
other standard wheel based emergency
vehicles.
Special Considerations
Speed cushions are usually placed 300 to 600 feet apart.
Speed cushions need Fire Department and Police Department approval to ensure
adequate delivery of emergency vehicles.
Require advanced warning signs and pavement markings.
Speed cushions shall not be installed on streets with posted speed limits greater
than 30 MPH.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Yes Possible Yes Possible No Yes Yes
Objective: To reduce vehicle speeds on neighborhood streets.
Potential Cost: $7,500 per speed cushion.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 48
Roundabouts & Traffic Circles
Phase 2
Description: Roundabouts and traffic circles are
raised circular islands placed in the center of an
intersection. They require vehicles to slow down to
a comfortable speed in order to maneuver around
the circle.
Advantages Disadvantages
Effectively reduces vehicle
speeds.
Reduces potential for collisions.
Provides increased access for
side streets.
Opportunity for landscaping.
Minimal noise impacts.
Can be attractive, if well
maintained.
Loss of parking.
Can disrupt access for large vehicles.
Very expensive
Possible decrease in emergency response
times.
Can increase conflicts between bicycles
and automobiles.
Can require increased maintenance.
May require additional right-of-way.
Special Considerations
Requires additional signage and pavement markings.
Not recommended at T-intersections and offset intersections.
Most effective when used in combination with other devices or placed in series
on short blocks.
Requires curbside parking prohibition within 30 feet of circle.
At slow speeds, buses can maneuver around traffic circles.
Not used at 4-way stop intersections
Installed with vertical curb where vehicle circulation allows; otherwise curbs are
designed to be mountable.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Yes Possible No Yes No Yes Yes
Objective: To reduce vehicle speed by requires drivers to slow down to maneuver
around the circle.
Potential Cost: $35,000 to $115,000 depending on island treatment and right-of-way
requirement.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 49
Median Barriers
Phase 2
Description: Median barriers are raised islands that
prevent certain movements at an intersection.
Advantages Disadvantages
Reduces cut-through traffic.
Opportunity for landscaping.
Provides refuge area for
pedestrians.
Reduce vehicle conflict points at
intersection.
Provides location for placement
of visible signs.
Impedes emergency response times.
May divert traffic to other neighborhood
streets.
High installation costs.
Creates obstacle for motorists.
Can create obstructions for pedestrians
and bicycles.
Special Considerations
Restricts full access to and from neighborhood streets.
May become obstacle for motorists to drive into.
More permanent measure.
Difficult to alter or remove.
May divert traffic to other neighborhood streets.
Can result in increased emergency response times.
Possibility for varied designs, such as restricted left turns only on major streets.
Requires environmental assessment, CEQA compliance.
Makes it difficult for bicycles and pedestrian access.
Evaluation Considerations
Reduces
Speed
Reduces
Volume
Increases
Noise
Parking
Loss
Restricts
Access
Impacts
Emergency
Response
Increases
Street
Maintenance
Possible Yes No Possible Yes Yes Possible
Objective: To reduce cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets by restricting left-turn
movements.
Potential Cost: $7,500 to $45,000. Dependent on length.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
Draft Plan 4/18/2018
City of Gilroy
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 50
Appendix B: Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Public
Outreach Brochure
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Review)
NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
City of Gilroy
A measured approach to traffic mobility
and neighborhood livability...
Possible Solutions…..
Community Outreach/Education
Community outreach involves neighborhood awareness
and education campaigns on traffic and traffic safety is-
sues. Campaigns can consist of neighborhood meetings,
written correspondence, school safety workshops, or oth-
er programs that help inform and educate the public.
Police Enforcement
Enforcement encourages
motorists to change their driving
behavior through the issuance of
citations. The Public Works Depart-
ment works cooperatively with the
Gilroy Police Department to provide
enforcement to address residential
area traffic concerns, such as speed-
ing and failure to observe stop signs.
Speed Display Units
These devices are equipped with a
radar unit, which detects the speed
of passing vehicles and displays the
speed on a reader board. The porta-
ble radar trailer is a mobile display
that can remain at each location 24-
48 hours and can be easily moved
between residential areas. Our goal
is to heighten drivers awareness of
the speed they are traveling and the
posted speed limit and adjust their
speeds accordingly.
Narrow Lane Striping
The use of payment markings may
be appropriate. Pavement markings
include school crossings, striping for
park-
ing or bicycle lanes to give the im-
pression of a reduced
roadway width, centerline reflectors
or foglines.
Median Barriers
Median barriers are placed along the center of a roadway
to prohibit left turns or cross traffic.
Signing
Posting of appropriate traffic control signs may include
adding speed limit, parking, dead-end, school signs, etc.
A common perception is that posting a speed limit will
influence drivers to drive at that speed. The facts indicate
otherwise. National research has shown
that drivers are
influenced more by the appearance of the
roadway itself
and the prevailing traffic conditions than
the posted speed limit. However, speed
limit signs still serve to remind
drivers of the speed limit
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions narrow a portion of the roadway by ex-
tending a portion of the curb into the street. Curb exten-
sions are commonly referred to as “bulb-outs”, which are
at the entrance of a roadway, and “chokers”, which are
placed mid-segment. Curb extensions also include
“Chicanes”, which are a series of alternating mid-segment
extensions.
Traffic Circles (Roundabout)
A traffic circle is a raised control island in the center of the
intersection that forces traffic into circular movements.
Motorists yield to vehicles in the intersection and only
need to consider traffic approaching
in one direction. They also require
vehicles to slow down to a comforta-
ble speed in order to maneuver
around the circle.
Speed Humps
Speed humps are design features
which rise above the roadway surface and extend across
the roadway perpendicular to the flow of traffic. Discom-
fort to the driver or damage to the vehicle increases as
speed over the hump increases.
Best results occur when speed
humps are placed in a series.
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
The Process……...
Step 1: Submit a Traffic Calming Request Form
Step 2: Staff will review the street in question, and
conduct an initial study and data collection.
Step 3: The data collected staff will implement
Phase I measures as appropriate.
Step 4: After a normalization period, staff will
conduct a study to determine the effective-
ness of the implemented measures.
Step 5: If staff determines that Phase 1 measures
are ineffective, and the street in question is
eligible for Phase 2 measures, staff will
rank your neighborhood based on the sever-
ity of the issue and place the neighborhood
into a priority list with other neighborhoods.
Step 6: Once your neighborhood is at the top of the
priority list, staff will work with you to
identify a neighborhood area. Staff will pre-
pare a petition and ask that the resident col-
lect the petition within this neighborhood
area. Your petition is deemed successful if
more than 60% of the eligible signees sign
the petition.
Step 7: Staff will hold a workshop within the
neighborhood area to introduce the NTMP
process as well as the various traffic calm-
ing concepts and functions of the Phase 2
measures. Staff will gather input from the
neighborhood and prepare a Traffic Calm-
ing Plan.
Step 8: After a review period, staff will hold a sec-
ond public meeting to introduce the plan.
Based on neighborhood comments, staff
may elect to revise the plan accordingly or
decide to move forward if the comments are
not substantive
The City of Gilroy’s Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program (NTMP) encompasses an overall approach to
neighborhood traffic management through a balanced use
of the three E’s—Education, Enforcement and Engineer-
ing.
The NTMP addresses potential speeding and/or cut-
through traffic issues to preserve neighborhood character
and livability. Each potential traffic control device has its
own characteristic effects on traffic flow. The primary
effects produced by these controls fall into the broad cate-
gories of speed reduction, traffic volume reduction and
increased driver awareness.
The success of potential measures depends on their use in
locations and situations for which they are most effective.
When appropriately implemented, they tend to be effec-
tive and self-enforcing. When implemented inappropri-
ately, they tend to be excessively violated unless aggres-
sive enforcement efforts are made. The City’s enforce-
ment resources are always in high demand, and it cannot
be assumed that there will be resources available to pro-
vide aggressive enforcement of new traffic controls.
How the Program Works
Getting Started………
Please take time to read through this brochure and share it
with your neighbors. It explains the types of tools availa-
ble for addressing traffic concerns on residential streets.
Most streets are eligible for traffic calming measures.
Once staff receive your formal request, staff will investi-
gate whether treatments may be applicable to your street.
These initial treatments are called Phase 1 measures,
which mostly involve Education and Enforcement tech-
niques. Staff may also implement signage (i.e. speed limit
signs) as appropriate.
If an engineering study later determines that the Phase 1
measures are ineffective and the problem persists, staff
will investigate whether your street is eligible for Phase 2
measures, which can be more effective but are not suitable
for all streets or all neighborhoods. Staff will work closely
with the entire neighborhood to develop a plan, request
funding and approval from City Council, and implement
the appropriate Phase 2 measures.
What is the Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program? The Process… Continued
Step 9: As the final stage in the public outreach
process, Staff will mail out surveys to
determine the neighborhood support for
Step 10: Staff will present the traffic calming
plan to the City Council for considera-
tion. Based on the level of support meas-
ured by the survey, staff may recommend
approval or denial of the traffic calming
Step 11: If City Council approves the plan, staff
will implement the plan as funding be-
comes available.
Which Streets are NOT
Eligible for Phase 2 Measures?
Phase 2 measures alter the configuration of streets, impede
traffic flow, change travel patterns and can be very contro-
versial. Therefore, the City of Gilroy exempts the following
categories of public streets from Phase 2 traffic calming
measures:
Streets designated as “Arterials” in the City of Gilroy
General Plan
Streets used as bus routes
Streets used as truck routes
Streets designated as “Collectors” in the City of Gilroy
General Plan are ineligible for devises that may impact
traffic volume.
Additional Information
The full Neighborhood Traffic Management Program docu-
ment is available on the City website at:
www.cityofgilroy.org
9.C.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Gilroy NTMP -Ver 9.0 GH-NT-GA 05-16-18 (combined) (1617 : Draft Neighborhood Traffic
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Report on City of Gilroy Use of Consultants for Professional and
Technical Services
Meeting Date: May 21, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Strategic Plan Goals
Financially Sustainable
and High Performing ☐ Livable Community ☐ Grow the Economy
☐ Upgrade Infrastructure ☐ Vibrant Downtown
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report.
BACKGROUND
Staff received a request from the City Council at its meeting of October 16, 2017 for
staff to provide a report to Council on how the City is using its consultants.
The consultants currently being used are designed to augment City staff’s expertise and
operational capacity. Most of the consultants perform specialized services for the City.
These include, but are not limited to:
Environmental;
Engineering, including design work in traffic, electrical, and utilities;
Plan checking, inspections, and other planning functions
Information technology services; and,
Contract and other management services.
10.A
Packet Pg. 342
Consultants also assist in covering other services that are needed due to position
vacancies for an interim period, or to deliver services that do not warrant having a full-
time staff member on the City’s budget.
Additionally, there are consultants that are being used for multiple departments, based
on the type of work that the departments need.
ANALYSIS
Specific Task Services and On-Call Services
On the attached report, the consultants are broken out into two categories. One group is
the on-call contracts. These contracts are based on an ability to assign task orders for
as-needed projects. The cash value of the contracts are given a not-to-exceed amount
per year, or over multiple years, depending upon the specific contract. The defined
service contracts are those that are for a specific service, with defined timeframe, scope
of work, and specific dollar figure or estimate. There are some contracts that crossover
the two categories, but most fall under one of these two descriptions.
Large Contract Consultants (over $500,000; regardless of term)
The City has multiple consultants that have contracted for multi-year terms where the
total amount for all years is in excess of $500,000. However, it is important to note that
these consultants are usually on an on-call basis and the cost is spread over multiple
years. Below is a listing of each such consultant, the amount of the authorized contract,
term, and the nature of the work of each. The actual costs per year is based on the work
being done via work orders, and will vary year-to-year.
1. CSG
CSG provides multiple services to Public Works and Community Development
under two different contracts.
Their contract with Public Works for engineering services is in an amount not-to-
exceed $2,285,000.00 as the latest amendment was approved at the April 16,
2018 Council Meeting. The contract term is from July 2015 through May 2019,
approximately 4 years. Prorated evenly over all four years, the annual cost for
the contract is $596,158 per year. This contract does include project
management and staff augmentation services, but does not provide an annual
report. This contract is paid out of the General Fund.
The Community Development contract for on-call inspection and plan review
services has a term of March 2018 to March 2021. The agreement is not to
exceed $863,588, for an annual pro-rated amount of $287,600. This contract
does include staff augmentation services, but does not provide project
management services or an annual report. This contract is paid out of the
General Fund.
10.A
Packet Pg. 343
Both contracts combined, the annual pro-rated amount is $883,758.
2. Minter Harnish Planning
Minter Harnish is providing support to the Community Development Dep artment
for the General Plan Update currently underway. The contract is for a not to
exceed amount of $2,460,279.00. The contract is for a term of approximately
seven years, from August of 2013 through June of 2020. Prorated evenly across
all years, it amounts to approximately $351,468 per year. The contract includes
project management services, but not staff augmentation. They do not provide an
annual report. The contract is paid from the City’s General Fund.
3. Bengal Engineering
This firm has multiple contracts with the City, based on which project they are
working on. They are an engineering firm that is working on bridge projects for
Public Works in a project management capacity. There is no staff augmentation
or annual reports. None of these contracts are paid from the City’s General Fund.
The three projects that Bengal is working on include the following:
a) Tenth Street at Uvas Creek Bridge Project
This project actually has two contracts for a combined amount not to exceed
$2,060,077. Spanning approximately five years from August 2015 through
July 2020, the annual amount is $417,042 per year.
b) Cohansey Bridge Design Project
This is a four year contract (November 2014 to November 2018) not to
exceed $444,892. The contract averages an annual amount of $111,22 3.
c) HBRR Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Project
This contract is for two years (February 2016 to February 2018) for an
amount not to exceed $34,657, and has an annual pro-rated amount of
$17,329.
Combined, prorated, and summed from each project, Bengal’s contracts total
$545,594 each year.
4. David J. Powers and Associates
This consultant provides on-call environmental and planning services for the
City’s Community Development Department. They do not provide project
management or staff augmentation services, and do not provide an annual
report. Their contract is not to exceed $1 million. The cost is partially funded by
the City’s General Fund. The term of the agreement is for approximately three
years, from November 2015 to November of 2018. Divided evenly, the ann ual
pro-rated amount is $333,333.
10.A
Packet Pg. 344
5. EMC Planning Group
EMC Planning has two contracts with the City:
a) EMC has an on-call environmental and planning services contract with the
Community Development Department. It does not provide project
management or staff augmentation services, nor does it provide an annual
report. This agreement is not to exceed $1 million over its three year term
(November 2015 to November 2018). The annual prorated amount is
$333,333, and is only partially funded by the General Fund.
b) EMC also has a specific environmental services agreement with the Public
Works Department for the Uvas Creek Outfall Mitigation project. This contract
does provide project management services, but not staff augmentation or an
annual report. The contract is for $21,721, and spans five and one-half years
(June 2015 to December 2020), for an annual pro-rated amount of $3,915.
This contract is not paid from the General Fund.
6. Kimley-Horn
This consultant provides on-call planning services for the Community
Development Department. It does not provide project management or staff
augmentation services, and does not provide an annual report. The contract is
not to exceed $1 million over its three year term (November 2015 to November
2018), which pro-rated is $333,333 of potential cost to the General Fund.
7. M-Group
M-Group provides on-call environmental services to the Community
Development Department. The contract does not call for project management or
staff augmentation services, nor does it provide for an annual report. T he annual
pro-rata amount of the contract is $333,333. The contract is not to exceed $1
million over a three year term (November 2015 to November 2018). It is partially
paid for by the General Fund.
8. Michael Baker International
This consultant has multiple contracts with the City. They are all with the
Community Development Department. Neither of them provide project
management, staff augmentation, or annual reports. The amounts of the
contracts are below:
a) On-call environmental review for $1 million over three years (November 2015
to November 2018), paid for by the General Fund, amounting to a pro-rated
amount of $333,333 annually.
10.A
Packet Pg. 345
b) On-call planning services for $1 million over three years (November 2015 to
November 2018), paid for by the General Fund, amounting to a pro-rated
amount of $333,333 annually.
c) High Speed Rail peer review service for $80,148 for a term under one year
(September 2017 to June 2018), paid partially out of the General Fund.
In total over the three contracts, the amount authorized under contract per year is
pro-rated to $746,814 per year
9. Rincon Consultants
Rincon provides on-call planning services to the Community Development
Department. The contract does not call for project management or staff
augmentation services, nor does it provide f or an annual report. The annual pro-
rata amount of the contract is $333,333. The contract is not to exceed $1 million
over a three year term (November 2015 to November 2018). It is fully paid for by
the General Fund.
10. Urban Planning Partners
Urban Planning provides on-call planning services to the Community
Development Department. The contract does not call for project management or
staff augmentation services, nor does it provide for an annual report. The annual
pro-rata amount of the contract is $333,333. The contract is not to exceed $1
million over a three year term (November 2015 to November 2018). It is fully
paid for by the General Fund.
11. Placeworks
This consultant provides high speed rail contractual consulting services on an
on-call basis for the Community Development Department. They provide project
management services, but not staff augmentation services or an annual report.
Their contract is for a not to exceed amount of $829,810, and is to be paid from
the General Fund. Pro-rated across the slightly over three year term (April 2015
to June 2018) amounts to $259,761 per year.
12. Drake Haglan and Associates
Drake Haglan provides specific services through two contracts with the Public
Works Department, with neither being funded by the General Fund. The two
contracts are:
a) Design contract for the Ronan Channel Trail project includes project
management services, but does not include staff augmentation or annual
reporting. The contract is not to exceed $929,923 over the nearly six and
one-half years (October 2011 to March 2018), which is a pro-rated annual
amount of $143,156.
10.A
Packet Pg. 346
b) Grant application contract for drafting four grant applications not to exceed
$32,040 over three years (June 2016 to June 2019) for an annual amount of
$10,680. This contract does not provide project management, staff
augmentation, nor annual reports.
13. SDI Presence (NexLevel)
NexLevel has three specific task contracts in support of the Information
Technology (IT) Division. They are:
a) IT Strategic Plan development agreement not to exceed $77,400 partially
funded by the General Fund. The term of the agreement is less than one
year (October 2017 through June 2018). It does not include project
management nor staff augmentation services, and an annual report is not
provided. It is partially funded by the General Fund.
b) Project management agreement for an enterprise resource planning software
that serves City-wide. The agreement is not to exceed $534,725. The term of
the agreement is nearly four years, from April 2018 to December 2021. The
pro-rated amount would be $144,360. It is a project management agreement,
but is not augmenting City staff, and although there will be regular progress
updates, there is no annual report on the agreement. The contract is partially
funded by the General Fund.
c) Project management agreement for a land management system software for
the Community Development Department and is entirely funded by the
General Fund. The agreement is not to exceed $232,950. With a term of
nearly four years (April 2018 to December 2021) the pro-rated amount would
be $62,890. The agreement does not include staff augmentation services,
and similar to above, it does have regular updates, but not an annual report
on the agreement.
Combined, NexLevel’s contracts with the City total an annual pro -rated amount
of $284,650.
14. 4-Leaf, Inc.
This consultant has two contracts, one with Public Works and the other with
Community Development. Neither of them provide annual reports.
The Public Works contract for construction management for the First Street
utilities is a specific task contract that is not paid by the General Fund. It involves
project management, but not staff augmentation. The contract is for a total not to
exceed amount of $324,208 for the term of October 2015 through December
2017, approximately two years. The annual amount is $148,663.
The agreement with Community Development for on-call fire and building plan
review and inspections is for a total amount not to exceed $200,000. The
10.A
Packet Pg. 347
agreement does not provide project management, but does augment City staff.
Pro-rated over its three year term (March 2018 to March 2021), the annual
amount of the contract is $66,606 from the City’s General Fund.
15. EPC IT Solutions
EPC is an IT staffing services consultant whose contract includes project
management and staff augmentation. They do not provide annual reports. The
contract not to exceed amount is currently $512,560 over the contract period of
nearly two and one-half years (July 2015 to January 2018). This results in a pro-
rated amount of $200,519 per year. This contract is only partially funded by the
General Fund.
16. West Coast Arborist
West Coast Arborists, Inc. conducts tree maintenance services for the Public
Works Department. The contract is not to exceed $508,000. The term of the
agreement is from July of 2016 to July of 2019, a total of three years. The pro-
rata amount is $169,333, and is funded entirely by the General Fund. This
contract does not provide project management or staff augmentation services,
and does not provide an annual report.
17. Hydroscience
This consultant provides water and storm utility design services on an on -call
basis to the Public Works Department. They provide project management
services, but do not augment City staff. They do not provide an annual report.
The contract is not to exceed $505,550. Over the four year term (March 2014 to
March 2018), the pro-rated amount is $126,301, and is not paid from the
General Fund.
18. Architectural Resources Group
This consultant provides on-call historical evaluation services to the Community
Development Department with a not to exceed amount of $500,000. They do not
provide project management or staff augmentation services, and do not provide
an annual report. The contract term is over three years (November 2015 to
November 2018), making the pro-rata amount per year total $166,667. This
contract is not paid out of the General Fund.
19. Archives and Architectural
This consultant provides on-call historical evaluation services to the Community
Development Department with a not to exceed amount of $500,000. They do not
provide project management or staff augmentation services, and do not provide
an annual report. The contract term is over three years (November 2015 to
November 2018), making the pro-rata amount per year total $166,667. This
contract is not paid out of the General Fund.
10.A
Packet Pg. 348
20. Evans and De Shazo
This consultant provides on-call historical evaluation services to the Community
Development Department with a not to exceed amount of $500,000. They do not
provide project management or staff augmentation services, and do not provide
an annual report. The contract term is over three years (November 2015 to
November 2018), making the pro-rata amount per year total $166,667. This
contract is not paid out of the General Fund.
21. Garavaglia Architecture
This consultant provides on-call historical evaluation services to the Community
Development Department with a not to exceed amount of $500,000. They do not
provide project management or staff augmentation services, and do not provide
an annual report. The contract term is over three years (November 2015 to
November 2018), making the pro-rata amount per year total $166,667. This
contract is not paid out of the General Fund.
Use Statistics
Staff has been requested to report on a few statistics regarding the use of consultants.
Below is a table that identifies these various statistics.
Area of Interest Number of Consultant
Contracts
Total
Contracts Percentage
On-Call Consultant 37 71 52%
Staff Augmentation 11 71 15%
Project Management 22 71 31%
Provide an Annual Report 3 71 4%
Fully General Fund Funded 28 71 39%
Partial General Fund Funded 16 71 23%
Not General Fund Funded 27 71 38%
Administration 1 71 1%
Community Development 23 71 32%
Finance/IT 7 71 10%
Fire 2 71 3%
Human Resources 5 71 7%
Police 1 71 1%
Public Works 31 71 44%
Recreation 1 71 1%
Contracts by Department
As can be seen from the above table, a majority of the contracts are for on-call services,
usually driven by individual work orders. Staff augmentation is a service tied to 15% of
consultant agreements, and project management services are provided in 31% of
10.A
Packet Pg. 349
consultant agreements. These services are not exclusive, as some agreements cover
multiple criteria.
Attached to this staff report is a listing of consultants, the type of work that they are
doing, the pro-rated annual contract amount, and which department is receiving the
services. In the full index, it is worth pointing out the majority of the agreements use a
not-to-exceed amount. They can be amended to increase this amount pursuant to the
purchasing policy of the City. Additionally, these amounts are the maximum possible
amount, pro-rated over the term of the agreement. Some contracts will be paid below
that not-to-exceed amount. Consultant use is also limited by the approved appropriation
amounts in the adopted budget.
Of the City’s departments, Public Works and Community Development use the most
consultants, representing 76% of the total consultant contracts. The remainder is spread
across the other six departments. Given the level of use of consultants, these two
departments were further asked to clarify their contract management practices,
discussed later in this staff report.
Other Cities’ Use of Consultants
A voluntary survey was conducted of other cities, both in Santa Clara County as well as
statewide through the League of California Cities Listservs, an e -mail based distribution
group. Unfortunately, there was only one response from a city-wide perspective
(Morgan Hill). A few other departments in other cities provided data for their department,
but their departmental data alone was not sufficient for comparison purposes city-wide.
Morgan Hill has reported that they estimate $5 million in consultant costs city-wide per
annum. The population of Morgan Hill is 44,145, with an estimated 40 consultant firms
in use. Below is a matrix comparing Gilroy’s use of consultants with Morgan Hill’s as it
relates to these factors.
Comparison Categories Gilroy Morgan Hill Difference
Population 56,000 44,145 26.9%
Cost of consultants 8,800,000$ 5,000,000$ 76.0%
Per capita costs 157.14$ 113.26$ 38.7%
Number of firms 55 40 37.5%
Morgan Hill’s reported use of their consultants is similar to Gilroy’s use of consultants.
The types of use both cities’ have for their consultants are mainly staff augmentation,
project management and external expertise purposes. Both cities have not recovered to
pre-recession levels of staffing, and both are seeing increases in the use of consultants
over the past five years.
One difference between the two cities is the number of consultants that are considered
on-call. Morgan Hill is estimating that 10% of their consultants serve on an on-call basis.
Gilroy has 52% of its contracts on an on-call basis.
10.A
Packet Pg. 350
Gilroy Contract Management
Internally, the City has seen an increase in the use of consultants over the past 5 years.
However, despite the increases, there have been a few changes in the way the City’s
departments are managing consultant contracts into the future. In particular, these
changes are in the Public Works and Community Development Department, which have
the highest use of consultants by a large margin.
As presented previously to Council at the April 16, 2018 regular Council Meeting, Public
Works has begun conducting a regular review of their contracts. The Department has
developed a contract tracking spreadsheet with complete project information including:
Project Manager/Point of contact, contract amounts, e xpenditures 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.
The Community Development Department has been and continues to consolidate the
work needed by the department into fewer consultant agreements. 5 years ago, there
were very few consultant agreements. However, in 2016, the planning division entered
into contracts with a number of consultants to assist with a variety of services. While
helpful to have the assistance with the increase in development applications, it
generated more administrative work to manage the contracts and consultants’ work.
In December of 2017, the Community Development Department began scaling back the
use of off-site consultants in planning, and brought the work back to just two onsite
consultants. This has allowed better oversight and efficiency in managing these
contracts. The Department will be letting some of the planning contracts expire when
their term is up this year. The Planning Manager oversees the contracts, checks the
billed hours and determines if they are on budget, and that the work gets done.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
No fiscal impact as a result of this report. Any decisions arising from this report that
would generate a fiscal impact or change in policy would come before the City Council
at a later date.
CONCLUSION
City staff uses consultants typically for specialized services that are not within staff’s
current expertise, to augment existing staff resources, and to manage projects. These
include engineering, planning, and other types of consultants to assist staff in delivering
services to residents.
While the annual amount may sound significant, it is not outside the norm when
considering the use of consultants in neighboring Morgan Hill. Additionally, many of the
contracts are on an on-call basis, which does not necessarily mean the full amount is
10.A
Packet Pg. 351
paid, only what work is actually assigned to them. Furthermore, a few of the contracts
from Community Development will not be renewed when they expire, reducing the total
amount of authorized consultant contracts.
Attachments:
1. DRAFT Consultant Contracts Index
10.A
Packet Pg. 352
DRAFT DRAFT City Consultant Listing DRAFT
Firm
#
Row
#Consultant Firm Name Scope of Work Specific Tasks or
On-Call Contract
Project
Management
Staff
Augmentation
Provide
Annual
Report
Department Contract Amount Term Start Term End Years
General
Fund
Funded
Annual
Average
Contract1
1 4-Leaf, Inc Fire plan review, building inspections and
plan review
On-Call No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$200,000.00
3/22/2018 3/22/2021 3.00 Yes $ 66,606
2 4-Leaf, Inc Construction management for First Street
Utilities
Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$324,208.00
10/26/2015 12/30/2017 2.18 No $ 148,663
2 3 AMEC Foster Wheeler Environmental &
Infrastructure
Assist City with NPDES/Stormwater
Compliance
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed $99,999 10/1/2014 6/30/2018 3.75 No $ 26,681
3 4 Architectural Resources Group On-call historical evaluation services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$500,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 No $ 166,667
4 5 Archives & Architectural LLC On-call historical evaluation services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$500,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 No $ 166,667
5 6
Arrow Sign Company Wayfinding signs Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$449,206.20
6/30/2014 6/30/2018 4.00 Yes $ 112,225
6 7
Avery & Associates Recruitment search services – Police Chief,
Public Works Director, City Engineer, Deputy
Director of Public Works
Specific Task No No No Human
Resources
Not to exceed
$98,000.00
11/8/2016 12/31/2018 2.15 Partial $ 45,683
7 8 Bartel Associates, LLC Agreement for actuarial consulting services On-Call No No Yes Finance Not to exceed
$23,500.00
8/1/2017 12/31/2018 1.42 Partial $ 16,591
9
Bengal Engineering Inc.Tenth at Uvas Creek bridge design Specific Task Yes No No Public Works 2 Agreements,
combined not to exceed
$2,060,077.00
8/24/2015 7/31/2020 4.94 No $ 417,043
10
Bengal Engineering Inc.Cohansey bridge design Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$444,892.00 design
11/3/2014 11/2/2018 4.00 No $ 111,223
11 Bengal Engineering Inc.HBRR bridge deck rehabilitation Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed $34,657 2/22/2016 2/21/2018 2.00 No $ 17,329
9 12 BKF Engineers Design of Downtown Monterey Road
Rehabilitation Project
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed $136,613 5/21/2018 5/21/2019 1.00 No $ 136,613
10 13 Blair Church & Flynn Consulting Design and construction and management
for First Street Sewer
On-Call Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$27,300.00
4/18/2016 8/31/2020 4.37 No $ 6,243
11 14 Bureau Veritas On-call building and fire inspection and plan
review
On-Call No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed $80,000 3/22/2018 3/22/2021 3.00 Yes $ 26,642
12 15 Cal-West Lighting Lighting and traffic signal maintenance On-Call No No No Public Works No set amount payment
schedule
10/13/2014 10/12/2018 4.00 No $ 258,496
16 CSG Building inspections and in-house plan
review
On-Call No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed $863,588 3/22/2018 3/22/2021 3.00 Yes $ 287,600
17 CSG Staff augmentation On-Call Yes Yes No Public Works Not to exceed
$2,285,000.00
7/2/2015 5/1/2019 3.83 Yes $ 596,158
14 18 David J. Powers & Associates On-call environmental and planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Partial $ 333,333
19 Drake Haglan & Associates Ronan Channel trail design Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$929,923.00
10/3/2011 3/31/2018 6.50 No $ 143,156
20 Drake Haglan & Associates Drafting four grant applications Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed $32,040 6/6/2016 6/6/2019 3.00 No $ 10,680
16 21 Du-All Safety OSHA safety training On-Call No No No Human
Resources
Not Available N/A N/A N/A Partial $ 15,000
22 EMC Planning Group On-call environmental and planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Partial $ 333,333
23
EMC Planning Group, Inc.Environmental services - Uvas Creek Outfall
mitigation
Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$21,721.00
6/15/2015 12/30/2020 5.55 No $ 3,915
18 24
EPC IT Solutions, Inc.Agreement for IT staffing services and
amendment
On-Call Yes Yes No Information
Technology
Not to exceed $512,560 7/13/2015 1/31/2018 2.56 Partial $ 200,519
19 25 Evans & De Shazo On-call historical evaluation services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$500,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Partial $ 166,667
20 26 G2 Forensic Investigations Public safety candidate background checks On-Call No No No Human
Resources
Not to exceed
$60,000.00
7/6/2016 12/31/2017 1.49 Yes $ 40,331
21 27 Garavaglia Architecture On-call historical evaluation services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$500,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 166,667
1
8
13
15
17
DRAFT DRAFT
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: DRAFT Consultant Contracts Index (1490 : Consultant Listing)
DRAFT DRAFT City Consultant Listing DRAFT
Firm
#
Row
#Consultant Firm Name Scope of Work Specific Tasks or
On-Call Contract
Project
Management
Staff
Augmentation
Provide
Annual
Report
Department Contract Amount Term Start Term End Years
General
Fund
Funded
Annual
Average
Contract1
22 28
Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.Adminstration - Community Facilities
District
Specific Task No No No Public Works 2011-1 $1,500/year
adjusted at 5% first 2
years 2012-1 -
$10.00/parcel + hourly
service rates and
additional expenses
7/1/2017 7/1/2018 1.00 No $ 26,173
23 29 Hammet & Edison, Inc. Consulting engineers broadcast &
wireless/peer review
On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not Available N/A N/A N/A No $ 3,600
24 30 Harris & Associates City surveyor services On-Call No No No Public Works Not to exceed
$300,000.00
7/2/2015 6/29/2018 2.99 Yes $ 100,183
31
Hexagon Welburn traffic studies Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$63,000.00
3/17/2017 6/30/2017 0.29 No $ 63,000
32 Hexagon Traffic impact trigger analysis at First Street
and Santa Teresa Blvd.
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed $8,000 1/15/2018 6/30/2018 0.45 Yes $ 8,000
33 Hexagon City-wide traffic studies Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$23,000.00
3/10/2017 2/24/2020 2.96 No $ 7,766
26 34 Higgins, Keith B.City traffic engineering services On-Call No Yes No Public Works Not to exceed
$49,999.00
6/1/2017 12/31/2017 0.58 Yes $ 49,999
27 35
HMH Engineers On-call civil engineering services- Auto Mall
Parkway concept
On-Call Yes No No Public Works No set amount payment
schedule
10/1/2012 10/1/2017 5.00 No $ 316,752
28 36
HydroScience Water and storm utility design services On-Call Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$505,550.00
3/10/2014 3/10/2018 4.00 No $ 126,301
29 37 Innovative Claim Solutions Workers compensation third party
administrator
Specific Task No No Yes Human
Resources
Not to exceed $89,000 7/1/2016 6/30/2018 2.00 Partial $ 44,561
30 38 Kimley-Horn On-call planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 333,333
31 39
Lynx Technologies, Inc.Consultant services for GIS On-Call No No No Public Works Not to exceed
$200,000.00
12/15/2013 12/31/2017 4.05 No $ 49,425
40 Management Partners Community Development review process Specific Task No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$59,670.20
9/19/2016 9/18/2017 1.00 Partial $ 59,670
41
Management Partners Consulting services (Interim Public Works
Director)
Specific Task No Yes No Public Works Not to exceed
$170,000.00
12/15/2016 12/31/2017 1.04 Partial $ 162,861
33 42 Management Partners Purchase policy review Specific Task No No No Finance Not to exceed $32,600 1/15/2018 12/31/2018 0.96 Partial $ 32,600
34 43 M-Group On-call environmental services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Partial $ 333,333
44 Michael Baker International On-call environmental review On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 333,333
45 Michael Baker International On-call planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 333,333
46 Michael Baker International High Speed Rail peer review Specific Task No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$80,148.00
9/1/2017 6/30/2018 0.83 Partial $ 80,148
36 47
Mintier Harnish Planning Consultants Contractual services for General Plan Specific Task Yes No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$2,460,279.00
8/1/2013 6/30/2020 6.92 Yes $ 355,644
37 48
MNS Engineers, Inc.Construction management and inspection
services
On-Call Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$206,869.00
10/10/2014 10/9/2017 3.00 No $ 68,956
49
Mott MacDonald Group Multi-way stop warrant evaluations and
10th and Luchessa at-grade crossing
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed
$98,300.00
5/25/2016 5/26/2019 3.00 No $ 32,737
50 Mott MacDonald Group Upper Welburn Ave traffic data collection Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$2,438.00
6/23/2017 6/30/2018 1.02 No $ 2,392
39 51 NBS Government Finance Group Consultant for bonds On-Call No No Yes Finance No set amount payment
schedule
4/1/2015 ongoing 1.00 No $ 9,049
25
32
35
38
DRAFT DRAFT
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: DRAFT Consultant Contracts Index (1490 : Consultant Listing)
DRAFT DRAFT City Consultant Listing DRAFT
Firm
#
Row
#Consultant Firm Name Scope of Work Specific Tasks or
On-Call Contract
Project
Management
Staff
Augmentation
Provide
Annual
Report
Department Contract Amount Term Start Term End Years
General
Fund
Funded
Annual
Average
Contract1
52 NexLevel Agreement for IT strategic plan consulting
services
Specific Task No No No Information
Technology
Not to exceed
$77,400.00
10/1/2017 6/30/2018 0.75 Partial $ 77,400
53 NexLevel Enterprise resource planning software
project management agreement
Specific Task Yes No No Information
Technology
Not to exceed $534,725 4/19/2018 12/31/2021 3.70 Partial $ 144,360
54 NexLevel Land management system software project
management agreement
Specific Task Yes No No Information
Technology
Not to exceed $232,950 4/19/2018 12/31/2021 3.70 Yes $ 62,890
55 Nova Partners, Inc Construction management San Ysidro Park
Pathway Project Phase 2
Specific Task Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$19,140.00
2/9/2017 2/9/2019 2.00 No $ 9,570
56 Nova Partners, Inc Fire station assessment Specific Task No No No Fire Not to exceed
$34,950.00
6/3/2016 6/1/2018 1.99 Yes $ 17,523
42 57 Personal Impression Paint Co.Graffiti abatement contractor On-Call No No No Police Not to exceed
$30,000.00
7/19/2016 6/30/2021 4.95 Yes $ 30,000
43 58
Placeworks High Speed Rail contractual services On-Call Yes No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$829,810.37
4/21/2015 6/30/2018 3.19 Yes $ 259,761
59 Regional Governmental Services Provides planning advisors to support City
staff
Specific Task No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed $99,999 10/12/2017 Month to Month 1.00 Yes $ 99,999
60 Regional Governmental Services Temporary HR Analyst until position filled On-Call No Yes No Human
Resources
Not to exceed $40,000 6/12/2017 10/31/2017 0.39 Partial $ 40,000
45 61 Rincon Consultants On-call planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 333,333
46 62 Safety Network Signs, Inc.Traffic regulatory sign inventory and
retroflectivity assessment
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed
$69,807.00
10/3/2016 10/3/2019 3.00 No $ 23,269
47 63 Sobel Communications Community engagement training and
consultation
On-Call No No No Administration Not to exceed
$45,500.00
8/1/2017 6/30/2018 0.91 Yes $ 45,500
48 64
Stanford Medical Center Medical Director to oversee EMS program -
mandated per contract with Santa Clara
County
Specific Task No No No Fire Annually $15,000.00 8/8/2017 8/7/2020 3.00 Yes $ 15,000
49 65
TJKM On-call traffic engineering services -
assessment/recommendation for bike/ped
improvements on First St.
On-Call Yes No No Public Works Not to exceed
$15,000.00
4/18/2017 6/30/2018 1.20 Yes $ 12,500
50 66 TRB and Associates On-call building and fire inspection and plan
review
On-Call No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$30,000.00
3/22/2018 3/22/2021 3.00 Yes $ 9,991
51 67 Urban Planning Partners On-call planning services On-Call No No No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$1,000,000.00
11/6/2015 11/6/2018 3.00 Yes $ 333,333
52 68 West Coast Arborists, Inc Tree maintenance work Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed
$508,000.00
7/11/2016 7/11/2019 3.00 Yes $ 169,333
53 69 West Coast Code Building inspections and in-house plan
review
On-Call No Yes No Community
Development
Not to exceed
$15,000.00
3/22/2018 3/22/2021 3.00 Yes $ 4,995
54 70 Weston Miles Architects Gilroy Arts Center design Specific Task No No No Recreation No to Exceed $35,000 12/11/2017 6/30/2018 0.55 Yes $ 35,000
55 71 Wood Environment and Infrastructure
Solutions
Corporation Yard Storm Water
Improvements Design and Engineering
Specific Task No No No Public Works Not to exceed $118,200 5/8/2018 1/31/2019 0.73 No $ 118,200
1) Annual contract amount is an evenly pro-rated amount of the not to exceed amount, or amount authorized by purchase order for this year, depending upon if the contract has a specific payment amount identified $ 8,795,838
Contracts without a set amount or payment schedule had their annual amounts determined based upon purchase order amounts authorized
Total Amount:
41
44
40
DRAFT DRAFT
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: DRAFT Consultant Contracts Index (1490 : Consultant Listing)