Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/01/26 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Parks Planning and Design Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT (ID # 5762) DOC ID: 5762
Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 1 Award a Construction Contract and Artwork Contracts for Centerville Community Park Expansion Project (PWC 8392C) – Approve the Plans and Specifications; award a Construction Contract in the amount of $9,065,106 to Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc, plus a 10% Construction Contingency in the amount of $906,511 for a total construction contract amount of $9,971,617; deny bid protest from A&B Construction; appropriations actions; approve the first choice artwork selections and award contracts of up to $89,000 to Colin Selig and Rita Soyfertis or backup artists for the public art at Centerville Community Park, as recommended by the City of Fremont’s Art Review Board and Recreation Commission; and make findings of CEQA exemption per Guidelines Section 15162.
Contact Persons:
Name: Tara Bhuthimethee Kim Beranek
Title: Parks Planning and Design Manager Community Services Director Div/Dept: Parks Planning and Design Community Services
Phone: 510-494-4738 510-494-4330
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: Staff is seeking approval of the plans and specifications for Centerville Community Park Expansion Project, denial of the bid protest from A&B Contractors, acceptance of the bid from Suarez and Munoz, and award of the construction contract to Suarez and Munoz, Construction, Inc for the Base Bid amount of $9,065,106, with 10% Construction Contingency amount of $906,511, for a total Contract amount of $9,971,617. The Art Review Board and Recreation Commission have made recommendations for the public artwork at the subject project to be considered by Council for award of up to $89,000 commission.
Background:
Park Description: Centerville Community Park, located at 3375 Country Drive, is an approximately 20-acre park consisting of a developed ten acres, including a community center, restroom, tennis courts, parking lots, and a playground area. Development of the adjoining ten acres will expand use of the existing park. The park is bounded by Eggers Drive and single-family homes to the north, Hastings Street and single-family homes to the east, Country Drive and multi-unit apartments to the south, and Washington High School to the west. The original 10-acre park parcel was dedicated to the City in 1965 and a Community Center was constructed in the early 1970s. In 1991, the City purchased approximately ten acres of surplus property from Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 2 Fremont Unified School District, thereby doubling the park’s size. The current project will develop the land acquired in 1991.
Master Plan Approval
Centerville Community Park Master Plan was adopted by City Council on May 14, 2002 after several public community engagement meetings which helped guide the overall theme for the park to provide for informal, unprogrammed leisure activities for people of all ages. Formal sports activities and league play will continue to be accommodated at the facilities in the currently developed portion of the park. The circulation system in the new park development will connect seamlessly with the existing park and will serve to create a sense of one unified park.
Construction Document Development and Demolition (2002-2007) Between 2002 and 2007, City staff advanced the Centerville Community Park Expansion project by preparing the Master Plan and construction documents for public bidding. In 2007, however, the project was placed on hold due to significant Citywide revenue reductions, which resulted in budget cuts across municipal services, including park maintenance. While the park expansion was deferred, the demolition phase proceeded and was awarded in 2008 to remove all existing structures and debris from the undeveloped portion of the site. Demolition activities included the removal of seven structures and their foundations, utilities, fencing, trees, asphalt and concrete pavement, associated earthwork, and other miscellaneous site debris, to prepare the property for future park development.
Revised Centerville Community Park Master Plan (Exhibit A) In 2023, the City recommenced the park expansion project with changes that aligned more closely with the City’s newly adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2022). The revised Centerville Park expansion plan was presented at a community meeting on August 23, 2023 and approved by the City Council on October 17, 2023.
The 2023-adopted project will include extension of the pathways, modification to concrete curbs and ramps on Eggers; installation of an asphalt parking lot; installation of play equipment and adult fitness equipment with safety surfacing; installation of basketball court and four pickleball courts with plexipave surfacing; landscaping with smart irrigation system and water meter, backflow and booster pump; site electrical work, and installation of public artwork.
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 3 This project is scheduled to begin construction in October 2026 and to be completed in the Fall of 2027.
Public Art Policy
Per the Art in Public Places Program Policy (Policy), one percent (1%) of funds from the estimated construction cost of a new public park project costing $1M or more is set aside to be used for public art. For the Centerville Community Park Expansion project, the Engineer’s Estimate for Construction was $9,200,000. Per the Policy, $92,000 has been budgeted for the project artwork to cover the proposals, design, any necessary calculations by a California licensed structural engineer, materials, fabrication, shipping, installation, construction observation, and coordination with the project contractor and City staff.
Discussion/Analysis:
Bid Results: On July 23, 2026, the City received ten (10) bids for the construction of the project. The apparent low bid was submitted by Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. The list below includes all bidders and their respective bid amounts:
Contractor Rank Base Bid
Suarez and Munos Construction,
Inc 1 $9,065,106.40
A & B Construction 2 $9,271,512.69
Marina Landscape, Inc. 3 $9,389,326.75
Guerra Construction Group 4 $ 9,679,542.49
Robert A. Bothman Construction 5 $9,814,000.00
Patriot Contracting, Inc. 6 $9,970,659.00*
S&H Construction, Inc 7 $10,014,723.20*
Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc 8 $10,163,550.30
QLM, Inc. 9 $10,320,113.00
CSI Services 10 $12,478,923.00
*Mathematically Corrected - Corrected for computation errors pursuant to Instructions to Bidders Part 6.1(A)
The low monetary bidder for the project, Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc, is a contractor experienced in this type of work and has provided a Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 4 responsive bid since all bid documents are in order. The low bidder’s price is 1.78% below the Engineer’s Estimate of $9,230,199.
Bid Protest
A Notice of Intent to Award was issued on August 13, 2026 to apparent lowest Bidder, Suarez & Munuz Construction, Inc (“Suarez & Munoz”). On August 19, 2026, A&B Constuction (“A&B”) submitted a timely bid protest in accordance with the City Procedures, alleging that Suarez & Munoz failed to comply with bid requirements by failing to add a numerical value under the “Unit Cost” for designated lump sum bid items, instead including “LS” (lump sum). A numerical cost for each lump sum item was included under the “Extended Total Amount.” All lump sum items listed in bid were for one (1) unit only.
A&B contends that by not providing a numerical value under “unit cost,” the City cannot determine the lowest bidder through computation verification since there is no unit cost to extend. A&B request that Suarez & Munoz be deemed a nonresponsive bidder and that the project be awarded to A&B as the lowest responsive bidder.
City Staff reviewed the protest and determined that Suarez and Munoz’s listing “LS” under “Unit Cost” for the 16 lump sum items where the unit quantity was 1 does not render the bid non-responsive. Each Lump sum has a unit quantity of 1, so no extension or computation was required to determine the “Extended Total Amount.” Rather the unit cost was the same as the lump sum. In addition, as there was only one unit, Suarez and Munoz’s action to not list the same amount under the “Unit Cost” as the “Total Cost” was not a material mistake which would allow the bidder to withdraw from their bid under Public Contract Code sections 5100-5110 without forfeiting the bid bond. As such, Suarez and Munoz’s lump sum bid cost had no competitive advantage and the bidder still remains legally bound to perform the total scope of work for the total bid amount, including the lump sums.
Public Art Component
The Public Art Policy sets the procedure for selecting public artwork, requiring the Art Review Board (ARB) to provide at least two options to the approval body unless selection of a single piece of artwork is appropriate due to its distinguished nature or other specific circumstances. In accordance with the Policy, the Art Review Board recommended two artists for a first Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 5 choice award, two backup artists as a second choice award (in the event that a contract agreement cannot be consummated with both of the first choice artists) and third choice backup artist for Recreation Commission consideration, who in turn provided their recommendation to City Council here.
Artwork Selection Process:
On March 18, 2026, ARB provided guidance for a limited artist invitation for permanent artwork at the Centerville Community Park Expansion Project.
Potential art locations were identified as site sculpture placed in a passive green area of the park, site furniture at the bocce ball court area, or mosaic tile installed on the concrete walls at the bocce ball court area. Sculpture was to be appropriately scaled for the park and a theme of “pops of color” was proposed. ARB and Staff made artist recommendations for the limited invitation to provide proposals. Of the seven artists invited, the following six artists provided proposals: Dmitry Grudsky, Kala Stein, Juan Lopez, David Roberts, Colin Selig, and Rita Soyfertis (proposals attached). Each artist was compensated $500 for preparing their proposals for a combined total of $3,000. Since $92,000 was allocated for public art, $89,000 remains for contract award.
On July 15, 2026, ARB reviewed the proposals and made their recommendations for first, second, and third choices for award. Evaluations were based upon the artists’ responsiveness to the ARB’s request for “pops of color,” appropriate scale of artwork in the park, history of exterior installation and execution, understanding of construction installation standards, and final installed cost. The artists recommended for award are listed below, for awards up to the remaining $89,000 allocation.
First Choice – Colin Selig’s Large Spider (sculpture) and Rita Soyfertis’s Draping Botanic (mosaic tile). ARB found Colin Selig’s vivid and playful “Large Spider” to be successful in meeting their requests for both providing “pops of color” and being appropriately scaled for the site. ARB also found Rita Soyfertis’s mosaic tile to be a colorful, attractive, and imaginative execution of their requests for pops of color.
Second Choice – Colin Selig’s Large Spider (sculpture) and Kala Stein’s Field Work – Native Wildflowers for Fremont (mosaic tile). Per the above description, Colin Selig’s “Large Spider” was also chosen for the second choice artists selection if a contract agreement cannot be reached with the first choice mosaic tile artist. ARB believed Kala Stein’s “Field Work – Native Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 6 Wildflowers” to be an attractive and successful response to the Board’s request for “pops of color” executed in a key location of the park.
Third Choice – Rita Soyfertis’s Draping Botanic (mosaic tile). This choice would include only one artist with an expanded scope to cover more walls than what is proposed in the first choice recommendation.
On July 15, 2026, the Art Review Board recommended award of the first, second, or third choice artists described above with a vote of 4-0-0-0-1 (4 ayes, 1 vacancy).
On August 5, 2026, the Recreation Commission considered and forwarded ARB’s recommendation with a vote of 6-0-0-1 (6 ayes, 1 absent).
Fiscal Impact:
Funding for the project was originally allocated in 2002, totaling $8,122,475, as a part of the original master plan for the undeveloped area of Centerville Community Park. When the project was put on hold in 2007, approximately $7,348,943 in funding remained available. The 2021/22-2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provided additional funding of $4,200,000 to the project to fund PWC 8392B Pre-Fabricated Restroom and Underground Utilities Project for $1,242,344, which was recently constructed and is awaiting final PG&E signoff to open. An additional $1,459,569 was added in FY 2025/26 CIP, including $959,569 from Fund 541 and $500,000 from Fund 543. Remaining funds total $9,566,864.
Transfer of Funds: Additional funding of $640,000 is needed to award construction of this contract. Staff recommends reallocating $65,000 from the completed Central Park Exercise Equipment project (PWC9003-540) and $575,000 from Pacific Commons Sports Park (PWC8839-540) for a combined amount of $640,000 to PWC8392-540 to supplement project funding. The funds from the Pacific Commons Sports Park would be proposed for replacement in the upcoming FY2027/28—FY2031/32 CIP when new revenues are allocated to projects.
Centerville Community Park Expansion Project (PWC8392):
1 Funds appropriated
to the project
(PWC8392)
Fund 540 Park $11,971,001
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 7 Facility
Impact Fee
95 Fund 541 Park
Dedication
Quimby
Impact
$959,569
Fund 543 Park
Dedication
Impact Fee
$509,341
2 Transfers
PWC 9003-540 Park
Facility
Impact Fee
95 $65,000
PWC 8839-540 Park
Facility
Impact Fee
95 $575,000
Total Funds $14,079,911
3 Project Expenses to
Date
Project Management,
Design,
Administration; 2008
Demolition (PWC
8392A); 2025
Restroom and
Underground Utilities
Project (PWC 8392B)
$3,192,301
Consultant Contractual
Services, including well
exploration,
geotechnical,
structural,
architectural services
$406,922
4 Remaining Planned
Expenditures (For
Construction)
Construction (Base Bid
and Construction
$9,971,617
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 8 Contingency)
Project Management,
Construction
Administration and
Management and
Design Contingency
(estimated)
$417,071
Public Art Allocation $92,000
5 Total Project
Expenditures
$14,179,911
6 Estimated Project
Balance at end of
Project
$0.00
Maintenance Impact: The City is committed to maintenance of this 10- acre expansion. Initial funding for maintenance totaling $660,000 was allocated in the 2021 Capital Improvement Program in PWC9068, Fund 545, Maintenance Funding for Centerville Community Park. The scope of maintenance, and the various daily responsibilities of staff, or their contractors, such as mowing, or trash pick-up will be determined as the project gets closer to completion. The proposed artwork is expected to have little or minimal maintenance. The public art will be made of durable materials, and have been designed for longevity with minimal maintenance.
Environmental Review:
A mitigated negative declaration was prepared and approved by the City Council on May 14, 2002, for the entire Centerville Community Park project, as originally designed (EIA No. PLN2002-00233) (“MND”). The five mitigations listed in the MND were proposed to reduce identified impacts during the demolition phase of the project to non-significant levels and were implemented during the demolition phase of work in 2008. The City Council approved a revised Centerville Community Park Master Plan for the unimproved portion of the park in 2023 and relied on the MND to determine that no further CEQA review was needed and that construction will not have a significant effect on the environment. The work associated with the revised Master Plan is consistent with the original park project analyzed in the MND and no further environmental review was required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 9
The current proposed project constructs the improvements contemplated in the Revised Centerville Community Park Master Plan - 2023 and is the same project that was contemplated in the MND.
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Analysis: No changes to the previously approved community park concept for the site are proposed. Although the MND was adopted over twenty years ago, the scope of the project remains a community park to provide for the daily recreation needs of the residents who live and work in the surrounding area of the park, with lighting, bathroom structures, and on-site parking that was considered in the MND.
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Analysis: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken since the MND was adopted in 2002, except that phase I of the project that was analyzed in the MND was completed. As such, the site remains an infill site with all structures and facilities removed, surrounded by urban uses, with no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species. Consistent with the determination in the MND, the project would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality and water quality, and the site is adequately served by utilities and public services. Furthermore, Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 10 no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts would occur.
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration would substantially reduce one or
more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a); see also Public Resources Code Section 21166).
Analysis: The project will not introduce new significant effects that were not already discussed in the MND. The identified potential hazardous materials impacts are not applicable anymore as the Phase I of the project, removal of the structures on the site, was completed. The project will also follow all of the mitigation measures set forth in the MND.
Moreover, these potential impacts, including the potential impact of noise, air quality, and encountering cultural and archaeological resources, human remains, nesting birds, and special-status species during construction activity would be further reduced through the uniform application of the standard development requirements in Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) Chapter 18.218.
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 11 As discussed above, the proposed project would be consistent with the MND and would not result in substantial changes in the project or to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken; therefore, additional environmental analysis or recirculation of the MND is not required, in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Links: https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/parks-planning- design/design-projects/centerville-community-park-expansion.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Exhibit A - CENTERVILLE Community Park Master Plan - Revised 2023 • Exhibit B - Art Locations
• Exhibit D - Rita Soyfertis
• Exhibit E - Kala Stein
• Exhibit F - Juan Lopez
• Exhibit G - David Roberts
• Exhibit H - Dmitry Grudsky
Recommendation:
1. Find the project to be exempt from further review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as the proposed project is consistent with the prior MND for the Centerville Community Park and would not result in substantial changes in the project or to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.
2. Approve the plans and specifications for the Centerville Community Park Expansion Project, PWC 8392C.
3. Deny the bid protest from A&B Contractors, accept the bid and authorize the City Manager or her designee to award and execute the construction contract with Suarez and Munuz, Inc. for the bid of $9,065,106, plus 10% contingency in the amount of $906,511, for a total construction contract amount of $9,971,617 for the Centerville Community Park Expansion Project, PWC 8392.
4. Reallocate $65,000 from Central Parks Exercise Equipment (PWC9003-540) to the Centerville Community Park Expansion Project (PWC 8392-540).
Council Staff Report (ID # 5762) Meeting of September 1, 2026 Updated: 8/27/2026 10:34 AM by Alberto Quintanilla Page 12
5. Reallocate $575,000 from Pacific Commons Sports Park (PWC8839- 540) to the Centerville Community Park Expansion Project (PWC8392-540).
6. Approve the recommendation of the Art Review Board and Recreation Commission, and authorize the City Manager or her designee to award and execute art commission contracts for up to $89,000 to the first choice artists Colin Selig and Rita Soyfertis.
7. In the event that contract agreements with the first choice artists cannot be executed, authorize the City Manager or her designee to approve and award art commission contracts to second choice artists Colin Selig and Kala Stein for up to $89,000; or if contract agreements with the second choice artists cannot be executed, authorize the City Manager or designee to approve and award an art commission contract to the third choice artist, Rita Soyfertis, for up to $89,000.