Gilroy City Council
March 20, 2023

March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA PACKET

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA
95020
REGULAR MEETING | 6:00 PM
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 2023
MAYOR
Marie Blankley

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rebeca Armendariz
Dion Bracco
Tom Cline
Zach Hilton
Carol Marques
Fred Tovar
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 Due to COVID-19, it is possible that the planned in-person meeting may have to change to a virtual meeting at any time and possibly on short notice. Please check the City of Gilroy website www.cityofgilroy.org for any updates to meeting information.

COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. The amount of time allowed per speaker may vary at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda.

Written comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1 p.m. on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1 p.m. deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written comments are also available on the City’s Public Records Portal at bit.ly/3NuS1IN.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0204 or [email protected] to help ensure that reasonable arrangements can be made.

If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.

March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to the Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.

Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO

RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204.

If you need assistance with translation and would like to speak during public comment, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at 408-846-0204 or e-mail the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected].

Si necesita un intérprete durante la junta y gustaría dar un comentario público, comuníquese con el Secretario de la Ciudad un mínimo de 72 horas antes de la junta al 408-846-0204 o envíe un correo electrónico a la Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad a [email protected].

To access written translation during the meeting, please scan the QR Code or click this link:

Para acceder a la traducción durante la reunión, por favor escanee el código QR o haga clic en el enlace:
bit.ly/3FBiGA0
Choose Language and Click Attend | Seleccione su lenguaje y haga clic en asistir Use a headset on your phone for audio or read the transcript on your device.

Use sus auriculares para escuchar el audio o leer la transcripción en el dispositivo.

The agenda for this regular meeting is as follows:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Invocation

1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

1.5. Roll Call

1.6. Orders of the Day

1.7. Employee Introductions
March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

2.1. Proclamation – Proclaiming April 2023 as Fair Housing Month

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

3.1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council on matters within the Gilroy City Council’s jurisdiction but not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested to complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances and handed to the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to 1 to 3 minutes each, varying at the Mayor’s discretion depending on the number of speakers and length of the agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the Council may place the matter on a future agenda.

Written comments to address the Council on matters not on this agenda may be e-mailed to the City Clerk’s Office at [email protected] or mailed to the Gilroy City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the City Clerk’s Office by 1:00pm on the day of a Council meeting will be distributed to the City Council prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, prior to the meeting. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record.

Items received after the 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the City Council as soon as practicable. Written material provided by public members under this section of the agenda will be limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.

4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Cities Association Santa Clara County Board of Directors (alternate), Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water Commission, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Commission, SCRWA Council Member Armendariz – Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate), South County United for Health
Council Member Marques – ABAG, Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, SCRWA (alternate)
Council Member Hilton – CalTrain Policy Group (alternate), Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board, South County United for Health (alternate), VTA Policy Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership (alternate), Gilroy Sister Cities Association, Gilroy Youth Task Force, Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Board, VTA Policy Advisory Committee (alternate), Visit Gilroy California Welcome Center Board
March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
Council Member Tovar – Gilroy Youth Task Force (alternate), Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Advisory Board, Santa Clara Valley Water Commission, SCRWA, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Mobility Partnership Mayor Blankley – ABAG (alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Cities Association Santa Clara County Board of Directors, Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Commission, SCRWA, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors, VTA Mobility Partnership

5. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE

5.1. Letter of Support for SB 48 (Behavioral Health) and SB 363 (Mental Health/Substance Abuse Facilities)

6. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS

7. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS

7.1. Interviews for Open Seats on Boards, Commissions, and Committees with Terms Expired or Vacant as of March 20, 2023, for Future Appointment Scheduled for April 3, 2023

1. Staff Report: Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

2. Possible Action:

1. Accept one application for open seats on the Parks and Recreation Commission that was received after the March 10, 2023 application deadline; and

2. Interview candidates for open seats on City Boards, Commissions, and Committees vacant as of March 20, 2023.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.

8.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the March 6, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting

8.2. Approval of the Action Minutes of the March 13, 2023 City Council Goal / Priority Setting Workshop

8.3. Acceptance of the City Fiscal Year 2021-22 Federal Single Audit

8.4. Accept and File Quarterly Cash and Investment Report as of December 31, 2022

8.5. Approval of Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01 for Plaza Allium (Evergreen) 10th & Chestnut Commercial Development, APN’s 841-66-036, 037, 038, 039
March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda

8.6. Award of Contract to Kimley-Horn for the Update of the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation Impact Fee Program in the Amount of $360,590 with a 10% Contingency for a Total of $396,649

8.7. Award a Contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-280 for a Total Project Expenditure of $174,565

8.8. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the City of Gilroy (Applicant) to Apply for Grant Funds Under the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program

9. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

10. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.1. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy [This is a De Novo Hearing at Which the Council Will Decide if the Environmental Review is Adequate, and if so, Whether or not to Introduce the Ordinance.]

1. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications

2. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

3. Open Public Hearing

4. Close Public Hearing

5. Possible Action:
[First Action] Staff recommends that the City Council, based on its independent analysis and substantial evidence in the record, find that: the Final IS/MND was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigations agreed to by the applicant; and the Final IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; [Second Action] Staff recommends that the City Council decide whether or not to move forward with this ordinance. If it desires to move forward, then the Council should follow option (b) below. If not, then the Council should follow option (a) below:
a) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Zoning Amendment application (Z 18-04) to amend the Gilroy City Code Section 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards).

OR
b) Uphold the appeal and motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance; and
Introduce an Ordinance (Z 18-04) amending the Gilroy City Code Section

30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards), with March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
modifications: Include additional content-based restrictive language in the Ordinance and any Electronic Billboard Development Agreement. Other modifications as the Council deems necessary.

11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

12. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

12.1. 2022 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report

1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Accept the report and direct staff to submit the 2022 Annual Progress Report to the California Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

12.2. Unhoused Camping Ban Near Schools and Critical Infrastructure

1. Staff Report: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Council provide direction.

13. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

14. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

15. CLOSED SESSION

15.1. Conference with Negotiator – Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (4)
City Employee: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator;
City Negotiator: Marie Blankley, Mayor;
Anticipated Issue(s) Under Negotiation: Employment Contract Between City of Gilroy & Jimmy Forbis

1. Receive Public Comment

16. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Council Member if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and GCC Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under GCC Section 17A.11 (e).

17. ADJOURNMENT
March 20, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 7 of 7 City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda

FUTURE MEETING DATES
April 2023
3 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
17 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
May 2023
1 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
3 Capital Improvement Plan Workshop - 6:00 p.m – 8:00 p.m. 15 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
22 Recommend Operating Budget Workshop - 6:00 p.m – 8:00 p.m.

June 2023
5 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
19 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
Meetings are webstreamed on the City of Gilroy’s website at gilroy.city/meetings.

2.1 p. 9 of 947
SENATE BILL No. 363
Introduced by Senator Eggman
February 8, 2023
An act to add Article 7.1 (commencing with Section 1323.2) to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to health and care facilities, and making an appropriation therefor. legislative counsel’s digest
SB 363, as introduced, Eggman. Facilities for inpatient and residential mental health and substance use disorder: database.

Existing law generally requires the State Department of Public Health to license, inspect, and regulate health facilities, defined to include, among other types of health facilities, an acute psychiatric hospital.

Existing law generally requires the State Department of Social Services to license, inspect, and regulate various types of care facilities, including, among others, a community crisis home. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to license and regulate facilities that provide residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services.

This bill would require, by January 1, 2025, the State Department of Health Care Services, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health and the State Department of Social Services, and by conferring with specified stakeholders, to develop a real-time, internet-based database to collect, aggregate, and display information about beds in specified types of facilities, such as chemical dependency recovery hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals, and mental health rehabilitation centers, among others, to identify the availability of inpatient and residential mental health or substance use disorder

99 5.1
p. 10 of 947
treatment. The bill would require the database to include a minimum of specific information, including the contact information for a facility’s designated employee, the types of diagnoses or treatments for which the bed is appropriate, and the target populations served at the facility, and have the capacity to, among other things, enable searches to identify beds that are appropriate for individuals in need of inpatient or residential mental health or substance use disorder treatment.

This bill would authorize the department to impose a plan of correction or assess penalties against a facility that fails to submit data accurately, timely, or as otherwise required and would establish a process for facilities to appeal these penalties. The bill would create the Available Care for Inpatient and Residential Mental Health or Substance Use Disorder Treatment Database Maintenance and Oversight Fund for the receipt of any penalties. Because the bill would continuously appropriate moneys in the fund for administrative costs of implementing the database, it would create an appropriation.

Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes.

State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Article 7.1 (commencing with Section 1323.2) line 2 is added to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, line 3 to read:
line 4
line 5 Article 7.1. Availability of Inpatient and Residential Mental line 6 Health and Substance Use Disorder Treatment Beds line 7
line 8 1323.2. (a)  (1)  The State Department of Health Care Services, line 9 in consultation with the State Department of Public Health and the line 10 State Department of Social Services, shall develop a real-time, line 11 internet-based database to collect, aggregate, and display line 12 information about beds in all of the following facilities to identify line 13 the availability of inpatient and residential mental health or line 14 substance use disorder treatment:
line 15 (A)  General acute care hospitals designated as part of line 16 supplemental psychiatric unit or chemical dependency service. line 17 (B)  Chemical dependency recovery hospitals.
99 SB 363 — 2 —

5.1 p. 11 of 947
line 1 (C)  Acute psychiatric hospitals and licensed long-term care line 2 facilities with a mental health program approval or certification line 3 from the State Department of Health Care Services. line 4 (D)  Psychiatric health facilities.
line 5 (E)  Mental health rehabilitation centers.
line 6 (F)  Inpatient psychiatric facilities.
line 7 (G)  Crisis stabilization units.
line 8 (H)  Licensed community care facilities with a mental health line 9 program approval or certification from the State Department of line 10 Health Care Services.
line 11 (I)  Licensed residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or line 12 treatment facilities.
line 13 (2)  The facilities specified in paragraph (1) shall submit accurate line 14 and timely data to the database in a form and manner prescribed line 15 by the State Department of Health Care Services in consultation line 16 with the State Department of Public Health and the State line 17 Department of Social Services.
line 18 (3)  The database shall be operational by January 1, 2025. line 19 (b)  (1)  Except as described in paragraph (3), the database line 20 created pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include, at a minimum, line 21 all of the following:
line 22 (A)  The contact information for the facility’s designated line 23 employee.
line 24 (B)  The facility’s license type.
line 25 (C)  Whether the facility provides substance use disorder line 26 treatment, mental health treatment, medical treatment, or any line 27 combination of those treatments.
line 28 (D)  Whether the bed is secure for the treatment of a person who, line 29 as a result of a mental health disorder, is a danger to others or to line 30 themselves or gravely disabled, pursuant to Part 1 (commencing line 31 with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions line 32 Code.
line 33 (E)  The types of diagnoses or treatments for which the bed is line 34 appropriate.
line 35 (F)  The age ranges for which the bed is appropriate. line 36 (G)  Whether the bed is available.
line 37 (H)  Whether the bed is available for children subject to a line 38 petition, and those adjudicated a dependent, pursuant to Section line 39 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, nonminor dependents line 40 as defined in subdivision (v) of Section 11400 of the Welfare and 99 — 3 — SB 363

5.1 p. 12 of 947
line 1 Institutions Code, or minors subject to a petition, and those line 2 adjudicated a ward, pursuant to Section 601 or 602 of the Welfare line 3 and Institutions Code.
line 4 (I)  For perinatal residential alcoholism or drug abuse recovery line 5 or treatment facilities, whether the bed is available for a minor line 6 child of individuals receiving treatment at the facility. line 7 (J)  The target populations served at the facility. line 8 (K)  The levels of care provided at the facility, including, but line 9 not limited to, medically or clinically managed detoxification. line 10 (L)  Specific services available, by bed, to assist with determining line 11 appropriate placement for treatment, including, but not limited to, line 12 medications for addiction treatment.
line 13 (M)  Type of payment accepted at the facility.
line 14 (2)  The database created pursuant to subdivision (a) shall have line 15 the following capabilities, at minimum:
line 16 (A)  To collect data.
line 17 (B)  To enable searches to identify beds that are appropriate for line 18 individuals in need of inpatient or residential mental health or line 19 substance use disorder treatment.
line 20 (3)  The database shall not include any information relating to line 21 state hospitals under the jurisdiction of the State Department of line 22 State Hospitals.
line 23 (4)  The database and the information contained therein shall be line 24 maintained in a manner that complies with all applicable state and line 25 federal confidentiality laws. The database and the information line 26 contained therein shall not be publicly available, and the State line 27 Department of Health Care Services may limit access to entities line 28 authorized by the department in a manner that is consistent with line 29 state and federal confidentiality laws.
line 30 (c)  (1)  The State Department of Health Care Services shall have line 31 the authority to impose a plan of correction or assess civil money line 32 penalties pursuant to paragraph (2), or both, against a facility line 33 specified in subdivision (a) that fails to submit data accurately, line 34 timely, or as required pursuant to this section. line 35 (2)  The department may determine a reasonable length of time line 36 for completion of a plan of correction. The department may issue line 37 a notice of imposition of civil money penalties if the facility fails line 38 to complete a plan of correction by the time specified. The line 39 department may assess penalties against a facility in the amount 99 SB 363 — 4 —

5.1 p. 13 of 947
line 1 of one hundred dollars ($100) per day from the date of notice of line 2 imposition of penalties.
line 3 (3)  A facility may submit a written appeal to the department line 4 within 15 working days of the issuance of the notice specified in line 5 paragraph (2). The facility shall include any supporting line 6 documentation and explain any mitigating circumstances. The line 7 department shall make a determination on the appeal within 30 line 8 calendar days of receipt of a complete appeal.
line 9 (4)  A facility may request a formal hearing within 30 calendar line 10 days of the department’s determination on the appeal pursuant to line 11 paragraph (3). Except for licensed residential alcoholism or drug line 12 abuse recovery or treatment facilities, hearings to review the line 13 imposition of civil money penalties shall be conducted pursuant line 14 to the requirements set forth in Section 100171. Civil money line 15 penalties against a facility shall continue to accrue until the line 16 effective date of the final decision of the department. line 17 (5)  Notwithstanding Section 100171, hearings to review the line 18 imposition of civil money penalties against licensed residential line 19 alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities shall be line 20 conducted pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section line 21 11834.37.
line 22 (6)  The State Department of Health Care Services may obtain line 23 a court order to recover unpaid civil money penalties against a line 24 facility identified in subdivision (a).
line 25 (d)  The Available Care for Inpatient and Residential Mental line 26 Health or Substance Use Disorder Treatment Database Maintenance line 27 and Oversight Fund is hereby created in the State Treasury, to be line 28 administered and overseen by the State Department of Health Care line 29 Services. Civil money penalties assessed and collected pursuant line 30 to this section shall be deposited into this fund. Notwithstanding line 31 Section 13340 of the Government Code, the funds deposited in line 32 this fund shall be continuously appropriated, without regard to line 33 fiscal year, to the State Department of Health Care Services for line 34 purposes of funding its administrative costs associated with line 35 implementing this section.
line 36 (e)  The department shall confer with stakeholders to inform the line 37 development of the database. Stakeholders represented in this line 38 process shall include, but are not limited to, the State Department line 39 of Public Health, the State Department of Social Services, the line 40 County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California, the 99 — 5 — SB 363

5.1 p. 14 of 947
line 1 California Hospital Association, organizations representing line 2 providers, consumers, and family members, organizations that line 3 have experience providing inpatient psychiatric level of care or line 4 services in a general acute care hospital, chemical dependency line 5 recovery hospital or an acute psychiatric hospital, licensed line 6 long-term care facilities with a mental health program approval or line 7 certification from the State Department of Health Care Services, line 8 organizations that have experience providing psychiatric crisis line 9 stabilization, organizations that have experience providing services line 10 in community care facilities with a State Department of Health line 11 Care Services mental health program approval or certification, line 12 psychiatric health facilities and mental health rehabilitation centers, line 13 and organizations that have experience providing residential line 14 alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment services. The line 15 department and stakeholders shall consider strategies for facility line 16 use of the database.
line 17 (f)  (1)  The State Department of Health Care Services and the line 18 State Department of Social Services may enter into exclusive or line 19 nonexclusive contracts, or amend existing contracts, on a bid or line 20 negotiated basis for purposes of administering or implementing line 21 the requirements of this section.
line 22 (2)  Contracts entered into or amended pursuant to this section line 23 shall be exempt from Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 14825) line 24 of Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, line 25 Section 19130 of the Government Code, and Part 2 (commencing line 26 with Section 10100) of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, line 27 and shall be exempt from the review or approval of any division line 28 of the Department of General Services.
line 29 (g)  Notwithstanding Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section line 30 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, line 31 the State Department of Health Care Services may implement, line 32 interpret, or make specific this section, in whole or in part, by line 33 means of information notices, provider bulletins, or other similar line 34 instructions, without further regulatory action.

O
99 SB 363 — 6 —

5.1 p. 15 of 947
(/) Log In
(/accounts/login/) /
Sign Up
(/accounts/signup/)
Search bills and leg Search
SB 43
California Senate Bill • 2023-2024 Regular Session
Behavioral health.

View Latest Bill Text (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43&version=20230SB4398AMD) Sign In to Follow (/accounts/signup/?next=/ca/bills/20232024/SB43/)

BILL SUBJECTS
Behavioral Health.

ABSTRACT
Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, provides for the involuntary commitment and treatment of a person who is a danger to themselves or others or who is gravely disabled. Existing law, for purposes of involuntary commitment, defines "gravely disabled" as either a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter or has been found mentally incompetent, as specified.

This bill expands the definition of "gravely disabled" to also include a condition that will result in substantial risk of serious harm to the physical or mental health of a person due to a mental health disorder or a substance use disorder. The bill defines "serious harm" for purposes of these provisions to mean significant deterioration, debilitation, or illness due to a person's inability to carry out specified tasks, including, among other things, attend to needed personal or medical care and attend to self-protection or personal safety. The bill specifies circumstances under which substantial risk of serious harm may be evidenced, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. To the extent that this change increases the level of service required of county mental health departments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law also authorizes the appointment of a conservator, in the County of Los Angeles, the County of San Diego, or the City and County of San Francisco, for a person who is incapable of caring for the person's own health and well-being due to a serious mental illness and substance use disorder. Existing law establishes the hearsay rule, under which evidence of a statement is generally inadmissible if it was made other than by a witness while testifying at a hearing and is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. Existing law sets forth exceptions to the hearsay rule to permit the admission of specified kinds of evidence.

Under this bill, for purposes of an expert witness in any proceeding relating to the appointment or reappointment of a California Overview
(/ca/)
Legislators
(/ca/legislators/)
Bills
Introduced in
Senate
Dec 05, 2022
Senate Assembly Governor

5.1 p. 16 of 947
conservator pursuant to the above-described provisions, the statements of specified health practitioners or a licensed clinical social worker included in the medical record would not be hearsay. The bill would authorize the court to grant a reasonable continuance if an expert witness in a proceeding relied on the medical record and the medical record has not been provided to the parties or their counsel.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

BILL SPONSORS (14)
(/person/susan-talamantes-eggman3h4UXRp0CZFe8uExE5oOcE/) (/person/laura-friedman6y6HzZQTtCCTAcPSJMcqNh/)
(/person/scott-d-wiener6lsgrCgvjfspYcr3jpsa5e/) (/person/miguel-santiago1P5pr8SnlSN1uzFOdVjI6U/)(/person/bill-dodd3rGprZWvmHWVn2pBSKFtv3/) (/person/caroline-menjivar5P8wHnJzr2HVN2bDJGeYep/)(/person/richard-d-roth1BCnqSUt0oiZvPpBjpI81z/) (/person/henry-i-stern37riwFn37s8mamsuhR7oTN/) (/person/phillip-chen3H8gT9EkN35vhhhZHBNhmj/) (/person/james-gallagher2qZkm1AUAk0Zw72tZqoz93/)
Susan Talamantes
Eggman
Democratic • Senator
• District 5
AUTHOR
Laura Friedman
Democratic
• Assemblymember
• District 44

COAUTHOR
Niello

PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR
Scott D. Wiener
Democratic • Senator
• District 11

PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR
Miguel Santiago
Democratic
• Assemblymember
• District 54

PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR
Bill Dodd
Democratic • Senator
• District 3

COAUTHOR
Caroline Menjivar
Democratic • Senator
• District 20

COAUTHOR
Richard D. Roth
Democratic • Senator
• District 31

COAUTHOR
Rubio

COAUTHOR
Henry I. Stern
Democratic • Senator
• District 27

COAUTHOR
Phillip Chen
Republican
• Assemblymember
• District 59

COAUTHOR
James Gallagher
Republican
• Assemblymember
• District 3

COAUTHOR

5.1 p. 17 of 947
(/person/sharon-quirk-silva419qFyN2B8ManVh0v6Fevb/)
(/person/buffy-wicks3xfCBPBFmuZG8N34eFwG28/)
Votes
No votes to display
Actions
Sharon Quirk-Silva
Democratic
• Assemblymember
• District 67

COAUTHOR
Buffy Wicks
Democratic
• Assemblymember
• District 14

COAUTHOR
MAR 08, 2023
SENATE
Re-referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

Referral-Committee
Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

FEB 28, 2023
SENATE
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Rereferred to Com. on RLS.

Amendment-Passage • Committee-Passage • Reading-1 • Reading-2 • Referral-Committee
Com. on RLS.

JAN 18, 2023
SENATE
Referred to Com. on RLS.

Referral-Committee
Com. on RLS.

5.1 p. 18 of 947
Bill Text

BILL TEXT VERSIONS FORMAT
SB43 HTML (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43) 12/05/22 - Introduced PDF (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43&version=20230SB4399INT) 02/28/23 - Amended
Senate
PDF (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billPdf.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43&version=20230SB4398AMD) Related Documents

DOCUMENT FORMAT
No related documents.

Sources
Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature (http://www.legislature.ca.gov/).

If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue (https://github.com/openstates/issues/issues).
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB43) ABOUT
Find Your Legislators
(/find_your_legislator/)
Track State Bills (/about/subscriptions/)
About Open States (/about/)
Terms of Use & Privacy (/tos/)

CODE & DATA
Code on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstates)
API Documentation
(https://docs.openstates.org/api-v3/)
Bulk Data (/data/)

FOLLOW US
Twitter
(https://twitter.com/openstates)
Blog (https://blog.openstates.org/)
Discussion
(https://github.com/openstates/issues/dis
DEC 06, 2022
SENATE
From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 5.

DEC 05, 2022
SENATE
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

5.1 p. 19 of 947
Report an Issue
(https://github.com/openstates/issues/issues/new/choose) Contribute To Open States
(/about/contributing/)
Slack (https://join.slack.com/t/openstates/shared_invite/zt-njrpuaoiJP0bROOFtZLdtNHN3LsuFg)

5.1 p. 20 of 947
March 1, 2023
Senate Rules Committee
California State Senate
State Capitol, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 43 / 363 (Eggman) Conservatorship Reform and Behavioral Health Bed Database –

SUPPORT
Dear Senators,
As Mayors of XX cities in Santa Clara County we are writing in strong support of SB 43, Conservatorship Reform, and SB 363, Behavioral Health Bed Database, which will strengthen and reform our conservatorship system while also establishing a statewide database for behavioral health resources.

California faces a startling dearth of behavioral health services across the state. The abusive approach of past psychiatric institutions was rightfully phased out in California decades ago.

While well-intentioned, the elimination of these facilities created major gaps in beds and services for those with a serious mental illness (SMI) or substance use disorder (SUD). Last century, our country hit a peak of 337 psychiatric beds per 100,000 individuals. In 2016, that number plummeted to 12 beds per 100,000 people. Without a robust healthcare infrastructure and the ability to compel treatment, thousands of Californians have been left without critical assistance in managing and recovering from behavioral health issues.

According to the California Health Care Foundation, one in 26 Californians suffer from a serious mental illness that impairs their daily activities. One in three jailed Californians suffer from a mental health issue. Estimates for the frequency of behavioral health issues among our unhoused population ranges from one in three to as high as two in three. As public servants, we must identify and promote the most effective, evidence-based care suited to each individuals’ needs across the behavioral health continuum. The outcomes we effectuate now for our most vulnerable residents will be a profound measurement of our success to future generations.

We thank Senator Eggman for introducing SB 43 and SB 363 as essential steps towards our collective goal of expanding access to treatment. SB 43 will modernize the Lanterman–Petris– Short Act to consider individuals with the most acute conditions for conservatorship. Individuals who experience SMI, SUD, homelessness, or all three are far more unlikely to recognize the severity of their condition, let alone the need for treatment. Family members, medical providers, first responders and community members are often desperate to get someone into treatment, but face extraordinary difficulty in doing so under current law. People with severe mental health challenges also tax our vital health and safety systems, impact neighborhoods and small businesses, and cycle in and out of emergency departments and jail. These are often the most expensive, least effective ways to provide them the services they need.

5.1 p. 21 of 947
Conservatorships are a last-resort attempt to care for an individual who has become “gravely disabled,” which is currently defined as not being able to provide ones’ self with food, clothing and shelter. SB 43 would enhance the definition of “gravely disabled” to a renewed focus on those who are unable to prevent serious physical or mental harm to themselves or others due to an inability to provide for their own basic needs. In addition to families, the Public Guardian can petition for conservatorship, allowing local governments to redirect individuals away from the criminal justice system and emergency departments and link them to effective care. Expanding our use of conservatorships is a practical and moral imperative. Governor Newsom has led valuable reforms in this area, such as the expansion of Laura’s Law, CARE Court, and advocating for additional utilization of public conservatorships.

Additionally, SB 43 addresses the inability for medical experts to present documented medical analysis from healthcare providers in the adjudication process. Due to the 2016 California Supreme Court Case, People v. Sanchez, out-of-court statements not presented by the commentator are labeled hearsay, and therefore inadmissible. Experts on the stand often rely on the analysis of medical professionals to argue as to why someone may need to be placed under conservatorship. Their clinical evaluation can provide critical context for why an individual should be considered for conservatorship. Under SB 43, courts will receive a more holistic medical background regarding the potential conservatee, ensuring juries are further equipped to determine whether conservatorship is justifiable.

We also applaud SB 363, a long-overdue creation of a state-run virtual dashboard for behavioral health beds. Some counties, including ours, independently operate dashboards displaying available bedcount of county-owned and contracted facilities specializing in treatments across the behavioral health continuum. Generally, these dashboards are updated daily rather than in real-time, meaning there is no standardized sharing of data between facilities when hours, minutes, or seconds count towards getting someone into treatment. SB 363 would direct the State Department of Health Care Services to create a database of behavioral health facilities and share bed capacity as it is changing in real-time. A comprehensive repository of specialized services such as chemical dependency recovery hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals, and mental health rehabilitation centers will provide breathing room for overwhelmed emergency departments and link individuals to condition-specific resources.

SB 43 and 363 jointly confront our behavioral health crisis with valuable tools and will provide meaningful, measurable outcomes for our shared goal of aiding vulnerable Californians and reducing the community impacts of serious behavioral health issues.

Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.

Sincerely,
[MUST INCLUDE SIGNATURE]
[NAME]
[POSITION]
[ORGANIZATION]

5.1 p. 22 of 947
City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Interviews for Open Seats on Boards, Commissions, and Committees with Terms Expired or Vacant as of
March 20, 2023, for Future Appointment Scheduled for
April 3, 2023
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
Prepared By: Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

1. Accept one application for open seats on the Parks and Recreation Commission that was received after the March 10, 2023 application deadline; and

2. Interview candidates for open seats on City Boards, Commissions, and Committees vacant as of March 20, 2023.

BACKGROUND
The City Council opened the annual recruitment period ending December 30, 2022, to fill seats on Boards, Commissions, and Committees with member terms vacant or expiring as of December 31, 2022. At the January 9 and January 23, 2023 City Council Regular Meetings, Council appointed members to the various boards and committees; however, vacancies remained for the following:
• Arts and Culture Commission – One (1) seat with term expiring 12/31/2024 • Library Commission – One (1) seat with a term expiring 12/31/2026 • Personnel Commission – Two (2) seats with terms expiring 12/31/2026 • Physically Challenged Board of Appeals – Two (2) seats with terms expiring 12/31/2025 and One (1) seat with a term expiring 12/31/2026

7.1 p. 23 of 947
Interviews for Open Seats on Boards, Commissions and Committees with Terms Expired or Vacant as of March 20, 2023 for Future Appointment April 3, 2023 City of Gilroy Page 2 of 2 March 20, 2023
In addition to these vacancies, on February 28, 2023, staff received a letter of resignation from former Commissioner Angela Reinert from Parks & Recreation Commission, vacating her seat starting March 1, 2023.

Staff has made every effort to notify the public about the open vacancies via the City’s website and social media platforms. In addition, staff has contacted previous applicants of the Parks and Recreation Commission from the annual 2022 recruitment to inquire if they would be interested in serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission.

At the close of the application deadline, March 10, 2023, at 5 p.m., staff received no new applications for any of the above-referenced commissions. However, former applicants Vincent Saso and Terence Fugazzi1(currently serving as Open Government Commissioner) did respond to staff inquiry and have expressed interest in serving on the Parks and Recreation Commission.

It should be noted that the City has previously adhered to a practice that did not allow an individual board/commission/committee member to serve simultaneously as a member of two different boards/commissions/committees. This was incorporated to allow as many residents as possible to participate in advisory roles. Currently, there are numerous commission vacancies and Mr. Fugazzi has shown an interest in serving on two commissions at the same time. As there are no legal hurdles (and no apparent conflicts of interest) to Mr. Fugazzi serving on two separate commissions at the same time, Council should consider his appointment to a second commission should he be deemed a suitable appointee.

CONCLUSION
For those seats without sufficient applications, recruitment remains open. Interviews have been scheduled with the City Council at this evening’s meeting, and appointments are scheduled at the April 3, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting.

Attachments:

1. Parks and Recreation Application – Vincent Saso

2. Parks and Recreation Application – Terence Fugazzi
1 Applicant Terence Fugazzi’s notice of interest was received on March 13, 2023, at 9:30 AM.

7.1 p. 24 of 947

7.1 p. 25 of 947

7.1 p. 26 of 947

7.1 p. 27 of 947

7.1 p. 28 of 947

City of Gilroy
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 6, 2023 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING

1.1 Call to Order
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Blankley at 6:00 PM.

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
Council Member Marques led the Pledge of Allegiance.

1.3. Invocation
There were none.

1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Pham reported on the posting of the Agenda.

1.5. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
Tom Cline, Council Member
Zach Hilton, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member
Fred Tovar, Council Member
Marie Blankley, Mayor
Absent None

1.6. Orders of the Day
There were none.

1.7. Employee Introductions
Police Chief Espinoza introduced Police Officer Alyxis Guerra to the Council.

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS

2.1. Proclamation – Proclaiming March 2023 as American Red Cross Month Mayor Blankley read aloud the proclamation and presented it to Camille McCormack.

3. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

3.1. Presentation from Community Agency for Resources, Advocacy and Services (CARAS) - Gilroy Youth Center
CARAS Members Hazel Quintero and Xavier Garcia provided a presentation to Council.

3.2. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL

8.1 p. 29 of 947
March 6, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 5 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

The following members spoke on items that were non on the agenda.

Marty Estrada requested Council to fast-track the Youth Center to the voters with a bond measure.

Araceli Vaquera spoke on the status of Las Animas Veteran’s Park situation and thanked the Council and staff for their hard work.

Eugene Bradley, CEO of the Silicon Valley Transit Users, suggested that a VTA bus stop be in front of the potential youth center and expressed his willingness to work with the Mayor and Council Member Hilton to help bring more public transit into the City.

There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

4. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco had nothing to report.

Council Member Armendariz recognized March as International Women’s History Month and she will be hosting a panel discussion on modern struggles of women at the Gilroy Library on Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 11:00 AM.

Council Member Marques corrected the information she provided from the last meeting City Council Regular Meeting about Gilroy Gardens.

Council Member Hilton reported on Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board.

Council Member Cline had nothing to report.

Council Member Tovar had nothing to report.

Mayor Blankley reported on CalTrain Policy Group and VTA Board of Directors. She also shared the news that Digital Nest and Youth Alliance applied for a grant to help them purchase a building downtown to operate a youth center.

5. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE

5.1. City Council Member Meeting Attendance
Council acknowledged receipt of the correspondence.

5.2. Support for the City of Gilroy’s 2023 RAISE Application – 10th Street Bridge
Council acknowledged receipt of the correspondence. She also notified that California Senator Padilla wrote a letter expressing support for the City of Gilroy’s 20203 RAISE Application to the 10th Street Bridge.

6. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Hilton requested Council to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of April as “Arts, Culture, and Creativity Month” in a future agenda item. The item received majority support.

Council Member Hilton requested Council to adopt a resolution to proclaim the last two weeks of April as “High School Voter Education Week”. The item did not receive majority

8.1 p. 30 of 947
March 6, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 5 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
support.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Blankley requested Agenda Item No. 7.2 be pulled out of the Consent Calendar and Council take no action on the item as the applicant withdrew their application. There was no objection to the request.

Motion: Approve the Consent Calendar except for Consent Calendar Item No. 7.2.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Armendariz, Mayor Pro Tempore Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Tovar, Mayor Blankley

7.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the February 27, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting
A motion was made to approve the minutes

7.2. Time Extension Request No. 4 for Tentative Map and Architectural and Site Review Permit Approvals for Development of 202 Townhouse Units at the Southeast Corner of Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street, APNs 808- 01-21, 808-01-22 and 808-01-23; filed by Eagle Garden, LLC (TM 13-11 & AS 18-20)
No action was taken.

8. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

8.1. Award a Contract to McKim Corporation for the FY23 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-279 and Approve a Project Expenditure of $271,205
Public Works Director Jordan provided staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

Motion: Award a contract to McKim Corporation in the amount of $246,550 for the construction of the FY23 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-279 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents; and approve a contingency amount of $24,655 to be expended only with approved change orders for a maximum project expenditure of $271,205.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Armendariz, Mayor Pro Tempore Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Tovar, Mayor Blankley

9. PUBLIC HEARING

8.1 p. 31 of 947
March 6, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 5 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes

9.1. Architectural and Site Review Permit to amend the Plaza Allium sign program, located on property at the northeast corner of Tenth Street and Chestnut Street, Application No. AS 22-24
Mayor Blankley asked Council Members to disclose any ex-parte communications. None were disclosed.

Senior Planner Tambornini provided staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Hearing at 6:49 PM. There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Hearing at 6:49 PM.

Motion: Determine pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, that the proposed amendment to the approved sign program is adequately assessed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (SCH # 2021060521) adopted for the commercial development project on September 20, 2021, and that no subsequent environmental review shall be required, based on its independent analysis; and adopt a resolution to approve the proposed sign program amendment AS 22-24.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Carol Marques, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Armendariz, Mayor Pro Tempore Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Tovar, Mayor Blankley

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2023-12

10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were none.

11. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

11.1. Approval of the Updated City of Gilroy Purchasing Policy Finance Director Sangha provided staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed public Comment.

Motion: Accept the staff report on the updated City of Gilroy Purchasing Policy with the additional verbiage about wage theft in the policy.

RESULT: Pass
MOVER: Zach Hilton, Council Member
SECONDER: Tom Cline, Council Member
AYES: Council Member Armendariz, Mayor Pro Tempore Bracco, Council Member Cline, Council Member Hilton, Council Member Marques, Council Member Tovar
NAYS: Mayor Blankley

11.2. Update on the Status of Council and Departmental Workplans

8.1 p. 32 of 947
March 6, 2023 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 5 City Council
Regular Meeting Minutes
City Administrator Forbis, Police Chief Espinoza, Fire Chief Wyatt, Community Development Director Goei, Public Works Director Jordan, Human Resources and Administrative Services Director McPhillips, Finance Director Sangha, and Assistant to City Administrator Atkins provided staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Ron Kirkish thanked staff for creating the work plan matrix.

Maria Agiular brought forth concerns about the other small businesses downtown and that Council should look at businesses all the way from 1st Street through 10th Street.

There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
There was none.

13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was none.

14. CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment. There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

The Mayor recessed the City Council at 8:16 PM.

The Mayor reconvened the Council to Closed Session at 8:26 PM. The motion to stay in Closed Session was unanimous.

14.1. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11 (2); Employee Name/Title: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
No reportable action.

15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Mayor Blankley reported out of Closed Session as shown above.

16. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by Mayor Blankley at 9:08 PM.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.
/s/Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk

8.1 p. 33 of 947

City of Gilroy
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
Monday, March 13, 2023 | 6:00 PM

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Blankley at 6:00 PM.

1.2. Roll Call
Attendance Attendee Name
Present Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
Dion Bracco, Mayor Pro Tempore
Tom Cline, Council Member
Zach Hilton, Council Member
Carol Marques, Council Member
Fred Tovar, Council Member
Marie Blankley, Mayor
Absent None

2. MAYOR'S OPENING REMARKS
Mayor Blankley provided brief opening remarks.

3. FISCAL YEAR 24 AND FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGET PRIORITY WORKSHOP City Administrator Jimmy Forbis and City Staff provided staff presentation and responded to Council Member questions.

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Terence Fugazzi requested Council to give the City Administrator additional resources to enforce the city’s municipal code.

Ann Marie McCauley requested Council to work with non-profits to apply for grants from Destination Home to deal with homelessness within the City.

Ron Kirkish stated that Council should stay with the original program with regard to the lighting program for Downtown.

Angelica Bonifacio requested Council to add lighting to Downtown.

There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 PM by Mayor Blankley.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing minutes were duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Gilroy.

Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk

8.2 p. 34 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Acceptance of the City Fiscal Year 2021-22 Federal Single Audit
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Finance
Submitted By: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
Prepared By: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
n
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Develop a Financially Resilient Organization

RECOMMENDATION
Accept and file the City’s Fiscal Year 2021-22 (FY22) Federal Single Audit report.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Single Audit has been completed and the independent auditors have indicated that the City of Gilroy has complied in all the material respects with the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022.

ANALYSIS
The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has established uniform administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements (commonly known as OMG Uniform Guidance) for Federal awards to non-Federal entities. It requires an audit (Single Audit) of an entity that expends $750,000 or more in federal grants or assistance annually. In addition to auditing financial data, the Single Audit focuses on compliance with grant requirements.

The City’s financial records are audited annually by the City’s external auditors and the scope includes Single Audits. The Pun Group performed the FY22 financial audit and the Federal Single Audit. The Single Audit has been completed and the independent

8.3 p. 35 of 947
Acceptance of the City Fiscal Year 2020-22 Federal Single Audit City of Gilroy Page 2 of 2 March 6, 2023 5
8 auditors have indicated that the City of Gilroy has complied in all the material respects with the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022. There were no findings or questioned costs in the FY22 Single Audit.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no direct fiscal impacts to receiving and filing the FY22 Federal Single Audit report. Audits and preparation of related reports are an annual workplan item for the Finance Department.

Attachments:

1. Single Audit Report for FY22.

8.3 p. 36 of 947

City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California
Single Audit
and Independent Auditors’ Reports
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022

8.3 p. 37 of 947

8.3 p. 38 of 947
City of Gilroy
Table of Contents
Page
Independent Auditors’ Reports:

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ............................................................. 1 Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control Over Compliance, and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance .............................................................................. 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ............................................................................................................ 7 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................................ 8 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs .............................................................................................................. 9

8.3 p. 39 of 947
This page intentionally left blank.

8.3 p. 40 of 947
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707

REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND

OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Independent Auditors’ Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, the discretely presented component unit, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Gilroy, California (the “City”), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2022, and the related notes to the basic financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated February 16, 2023.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements, on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or, significant deficiencies.

Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified.

8.3 p. 41 of 947
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California

2 Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s basic financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Santa Ana, California
February 16, 2023

8.3 p. 42 of 947
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM; REPORT ON INTERNAL

CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE, AND REPORT ON THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF

FEDERAL AWARDS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE
Independent Auditors’ Report
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Gilroy, California’s (the “City”) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022. The City’s major federal program is identified in the summary of the auditors’ results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022.

Basis for Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (the “Uniform Guidance”). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s federal programs.

8.3 p. 43 of 947
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California

4 Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of each major federal program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance, we:
 Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.  Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.

8.3 p. 44 of 947
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
of the City of Gilroy
Gilroy, California

5 Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance.

Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2022, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated February 16, 2023 which contained unmodified opinion on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming our opinion on the City’s Basic Financial Statements. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, as required by the Uniform Guidance, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and certain other procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Santa Ana, California
March 10, 2023, except for the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, which is as of February 16, 2023

8.3 p. 45 of 947
6 This page intentionally left blank.

8.3 p. 46 of 947
City of Gilroy
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
See accompanying Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 7 Assistance Amount
Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor Listing Grant Award Federal Provided to Program Title Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Direct Program:

CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster:

Community Development block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B-21-MC-06-0048 316,236 $ 167,419 $ Community Development block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B-20-MW-06-0048 62,548 - Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 167,419 378,784 U.S. Department of Justice
Direct Program:

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 N/A 7,125 - Total U.S. Department of Justice - 7,125
U.S. Department of Transportation
Passed through the State of California Office of Traffic and Safety Highway Safety Cluster
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program 20.600/20.608 PT22178 48,513 - Selective Traffic Enforcement Program 20.600/20.608 PT21160 42,235 - Total Selective Traffic Enforcement Program 90,748 -
Total U.S. Department of Transportation - 90,748
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Passed through California Department of
Community Services and Development (CSD)
Low Income Household Water Assistance Program 93.568 N/A 9,364 - Total U.S. Department of Justice - 9,364
U.S. Department of Treasury
Direct Program:

Coronavirus Relief Fund 21.027 N/A 10,301,521 -
Passed-Through State Water Resources Control Board:

California Water Arrearage Payment Program 21.027 21.027 156,922 - California Wastewater Arrearage Program 21.027 21.027 258,030 - Total U.S. Department of Treasury - 10,716,473
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ 167,419 11,202,494 $

8.3 p. 47 of 947
City of Gilroy
Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
8 Note 1 – Reporting Entity
The financial reporting entity consists of the primary government, City of Gilroy (the “City”), organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable, and other organizations for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the reporting entity’s financial statements to be misleading or incomplete.

The City Council acts as the governing body and is able to impose its will on the following organization, establishing financial accountability:
 Gilroy Public Facilities Financing Authority
Note 2 – Basis of Accounting
Funds received under the various grant programs have been recorded within the special revenue and capital projects funds of the City. The City utilizes the modified accrual basis of accounting for the special revenue and capital projects funds. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (the “Schedule”) is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (the “Uniform Guidance”). Therefore, some amounts presented in the Schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in, the preparation of City’s basic financial statements.

Note 3 – Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
The accompanying Schedule presents the activity of all federal financial assistance programs of the City. Federal financial assistance received directly from federal agencies, as well as federal financial assistance passed through the State of California, is included in the Schedule. The Schedule was prepared only from the accounts of various grant programs and, therefore, does not present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

Note 4 – Indirect Cost Rate
The City has not elected to use the 10-percent de minimis indirect rate as allowed under Uniform Guidance.

Note 5 - Subrecipients
During the year ended June 30, 2022, the City provided federal funds to the following subrecipients:

Assistance Amount
Listing Provided to
Number(s) Program Name / Subrecipient Names Subrecipients

14.218 Community Development Block Grants / Entitlement Grants Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley $ 140,000
Health trust Meals on Wheels 8,643
Live Oak Adult Day Services 8,560
Bay Area Community Health 10,216
Total Community Development Block Grants / Entitlement Grants 167,419 Total Amount Provided to Subrecipients $ 167,419

8.3 p. 48 of 947
City of Gilroy
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
9 Section I – Summary of Auditor’s Results
Financial Statements
Types of report the auditors issued on whether the financial statements audited were prepared in accordance with GAAP: Unmodified Internal control over financial reporting:
 Material weakness(es) identified? No
 Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None noted
Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? No Federal Awards
Internal control over major federal programs:
 Material weakness(es) identified? No
 Significant deficiency(ies) identified? None noted
Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major federal programs: Unmodified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with 2 CFR 200.516(a)? No
Identification of major federal programs:

Federal Assistance
Name of Federal Program or Cluster Listing Number(s) Expenditures Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 21.027 10,716,473 $ Total Expenditures of All Major Federal Programs $ 10,716,473 Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ 11,202,494
Percentage of Total Expenditures of Federal Awards 95.66% Dollar threshold used to distinguish between type A and type B programs: $750,000 Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee under 2 CFR 500.520? Yes

8.3 p. 49 of 947
City of Gilroy
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs (Continued)
For the Year Ended June 30, 2022
10 Section II – Financial Statements Findings
A. Current Year Findings – Financial Statement Findings No current year financial statement findings were noted.

B. Prior Year Findings – Financial Statement Findings
No prior year financial statement findings were noted.

Section III – Federal Awards Finding and Questioned Costs A. Current Year Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Award Program Audit No findings or questioned costs were noted on the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2022.

B. Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Award Program Audit No findings or questioned costs were noted on the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021.

8.3 p. 50 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Accept and File Quarterly Cash and Investment Report as of December 31, 2022
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Finance
Submitted By: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
Prepared By: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Develop a Financially Resilient Organization

RECOMMENDATION
Accept and file the quarterly cash and investment report as of December 31, 2022.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council is requested to accept and file the quarterly investment report as of December 31, 2022.

BACKGROUND
The quarterly investment reports are prepared pursuant to the City’s investment policy to keep the City Council apprised of the City’s investment activities.

ANALYSIS
At December 31, 2022, the City’s cash and investments totaled $171.5 million, of which $94.2 million is invested with the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), and $60.3 million is invested in US Treasuries. The fiscal year-to-date interest earnings are $1.5 million.

In addition, approximately $50.3 million is held by Fiscal Agents in the Trustee capacity for various bond issues as bond proceeds, debt service reserves, bond payments, escrows, and for post-employment benefits related to pension. The majority of this

8.4 p. 51 of 947
Accept and File Quarterly Cash and Investment Report as of December 31, 2022 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 March 20, 2023
balance ($31.4 million) consists of the City of Gilroy’s share of the Acquisition and Construction Funds for the SCRWA Plant Expansion Project.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There are no direct fiscal impacts to receiving and filing the quarterly cash and investment report. This is an activity included in the Finance Department’s annual workplan.

Attachments:

1. Cash and Investment Report as of December 31, 2022

8.4 p. 52 of 947

8.4 p. 53 of 947

8.4 p. 54 of 947

8.4 p. 55 of 947

8.4 p. 56 of 947

8.4 p. 57 of 947

8.4 p. 58 of 947

8.4 p. 59 of 947

8.4 p. 60 of 947

8.4 p. 61 of 947

8.4 p. 62 of 947

8.4 p. 63 of 947

8.4 p. 64 of 947

8.4 p. 65 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01 for Plaza Allium (Evergreen)
10th & Chestnut Commercial Development, APN’s
841-66-036, 037, 038, 039
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Daryl Jordan, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Jorge Duran, Development Engineer
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Promote Economic Development Activities

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01 for Plaza Allium (Evergreen) 10th & Chestnut Commercial Development, APN’s 841-66-036, 037, 038, 039.

BACKGROUND
On May 6, 2021, Evergreen Development Company, Inc., (Developer) with the consent of the property owner Donald J. Triolo, Trustee for “The Triolo Revocable Living Trust” (Owner) submitted an application requesting a tentative map to re-subdivide 6.8 acres of property into six commercial lots.

On September 2, 2021, the City of Gilroy’s (City) Planning Commission considered TM 20-03 in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning Code and other applicable standards and regulations and found that it conformed to the City’s General Plan and recommend TM 20-03 for City Council approval.

On September 20, 2021, Evergreen Development Company, Inc. received Tentative Map Approval (TM 20-03) to re-subdivide 6.8 acres of property into six commercial lots, as part of a planned commercial shopping center and hotel development. The subject

8.5 p. 66 of 947
Approval of Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01 for Plaza Allium (Evergreen) 10th & Chestnut Commercial Development, APN’s 841-66-036, 037, 038, 039 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 March 20, 2023
property is located at 401 and 411 East Tenth Street and 450 East Ninth Street, between Chestnut Street and Highway 101 Offramp. [Reference: Resolution No. 2021- 52 and TM 20-03].

DISCUSSION
The Developer is requesting City Council approval of the Parcel Map and to enter into a Property Improvement Agreement (PIA 2023-01) with the City for the project’s Public Improvements. These improvements include new street grading, paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, lighting, storm drain, water, sewer, and necessary utility extension and connection to serve the development. Specific improvements include widening of frontage to accommodate an additional westbound lane of traffic, re-pavement of the intersection, Chestnut, and Ninth Streets, and new sidewalk curb and gutter around the entire project perimeter. As part of the Property Improvement Agreement, the Developer is required to provide Faithful Performance and Payment Bonds of $3,295,114 (Three Million Two Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Fourteen Dollars), each for 100% of the estimated construction cost of the improvements.

The Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement 2023-01 are ready for Recording with Santa Clara County with approval by Council.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could deny the request to approve the Parcel Map and Property Improvement Agreement (PIA 2023-01). Staff does not recommend this option as it will impose unnecessary delay for the development of the site.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Plan check and inspection fees have been collected to cover the costs associated with this action. The Developer has submitted bonding and insurance for the abovereferenced Property Improvement Agreement and Parcel Map. All the required improvements are part of the Developer’s responsibility, and there are no reimbursements required for this project.

Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Parcel Map

3. Grant of Easements

4. Landscape Maintenance Easement

5. Property Improvement Agreement

8.5 p. 67 of 947

VICINITY MAP

8.5 p. 68 of 947

8.5 p. 69 of 947

8.5 p. 70 of 947

8.5 p. 71 of 947

8.5 p. 72 of 947

8.5 p. 73 of 947

8.5 p. 74 of 947

8.5 p. 75 of 947

8.5 p. 76 of 947

8.5 p. 77 of 947

8.5 p. 78 of 947

8.5 p. 79 of 947

8.5 p. 80 of 947

8.5 p. 81 of 947

8.5 p. 82 of 947

8.5 p. 83 of 947

8.5 p. 84 of 947

8.5 p. 85 of 947

8.5 p. 86 of 947

8.5 p. 87 of 947

8.5 p. 88 of 947

8.5 p. 89 of 947

8.5 p. 90 of 947

8.5 p. 91 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 1

LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Plaza Allium Commercial Center – Parcel Map (Evergreen) Plaza Allium Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C.

By and Between
The City of Gilroy
And
Evergreen-10th & Chestnut,
L.L.C.

8.5 p. 92 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 2

LANDSCAPING INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Plaza Allium Commercial Center – Parcel Map (Evergreen) Plaza Allium Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C.

This Landscaping Installation and Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) is made as of , 2023 between EVERGREEN-10TH & CHESTNUT, L.L.C., an
Arizona Limited Liability Company (“Developer”) and the CITY OF GILROY, a municipal corporation (“City”) with reference to the following facts:

WHEREAS, Developer is developing all of that real property in the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, known as and called: Plaza Allium Commercial Center, Parcel Map Plaza Allium described in the project improvement plans entitled Plaza Allium Off-Site Improvements, and project more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Property”); and,
WHEREAS, City adopted Resolution No. 2020-53 (the “TM Approval”), approving TM 20-03, a Tentative Parcel Map to (develop 6.8 acres into commercial center comprised of six parcels with shared access, parking and landscape improvements on the Property, subject to the Tentative Map Conditions (the “TM Conditions”) and other requirements described therein; and,
WHEREAS, City adopted Resolution No. 2020-12 (the “A/S Approval”), approving A/S 20-14, an application for architectural and site approval to develop 6.8 acres into a commercial center comprised of six parcels with shared access, parking and landscape improvements which is the subject of the TM Approval, subject to conditions of approval and other requirements described therein (the subdivision and project to be built thereon being the “Project”); and, WHEREAS, Before recordation of the final map for the Property, Developer must establish funding for the maintenance of the road side landscaping on 9th Street, Chestnut Street, 10th Street, Caltrans Right of Way frontage, and hardscape Plaza entry at intersection between 10th Street/Chestnut Street, said landscaping areas (the “Frontage Landscape Areas”) to include all areas located outside of the Property which are within the public right of way as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into to address the Developer’s obligations with respect to the Frontage Landscape Area, to establish covenants, conditions, obligations and restrictions which run with the land and which bind all persons and entities now or hereafter owning a fee interest in all or any portion of the Property.

NOW, THEREFORE, FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT OF

8.5 p. 93 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 3

WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to insure the timely and proper construction and installation of the Landscape Improvements (defined in Section 2 below) on the Frontage Landscape Areas identified on Exhibit B attached hereto in accordance with the Approved Landscape Plans (defined in Section 2 below), and the proper and diligent maintenance of the Landscape Improvements in perpetuity.

2. Landscape Improvements and Approved Landscape Plans. The Landscape Improvements consist of those described in the landscaping plans and specifications identified on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Approved Landscape Plans”). Copies of the Approved Landscape Plans are on file with the City in the office of Community Development Department, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020.

3. Duty to Construct and Install Landscape Improvements. Developer shall cause all Landscape Improvements to be constructed and installed in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the Approved Landscape Plans, the TM Approval, the A/S Approval and all other applicable federal, state, county, city and other governmental statutes, laws, rules, orders, regulations and ordinances (collectively, “Laws”), at Developer’s sole cost and expense. Construction and installation of the Landscape Improvements shall be completed no later than twelve (18) months after this Agreement has been signed by Developer and City. Prior to commencing work, Developer shall obtain all permits required by law for the construction and installation of the Landscape Improvements. All fees for such permits shall be those in effect as of the date of application for such permits.

4. Developer’s Duty to Maintain Landscape Improvements. Until Developer assigns its maintenance obligations hereunder to the "Manager" under the "COREA" as expressly provided below, Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, diligently maintain and care for, and repair and replace as necessary, the Landscape Improvements. Developer’s obligations pursuant to this Section 4 shall include, without limitation, the following: (i) providing sufficient water, fertilizer and other nutrients to the turf and other plants to maintain them in a healthy and thriving condition; (ii) keeping plants trimmed by removing dead wood from trees and shrubs, trimming back foliage which has exceeded the landscape boundaries and shaping plants as necessary, and keeping turf mowed to a height of between two (2) and three (3) inches and trimmed back from edges of hardscape; (iii) pruning and trimming trees and shrubs, as necessary, in such a manner as to prevent interference with sight clearance for pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle traffic on adjacent roadways, walkways and rights of way; (iv) maintaining, repairing and replacing, as needed, the irrigation system serving the landscaping, and obtaining all legally required permits with respect to such work; (v) causing all weeds, trash and debris to be regularly removed from the Frontage Landscape Area; (vi) replacing plants which have died back or become unsightly on no less than a monthly basis; and, (vii) paying all costs and expenses for the water and electricity used to irrigate and light the landscaping and Frontage Landscape Area. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, diligent maintenance and care includes persistent upkeep which employs the standard of care necessary to meet all requirements of applicable local ordinances and regulations and is

8.5 p. 94 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 4
in accordance with the generally accepted standards for maintenance and care observed by comparable uses located within the City. Developer reserves the right to assign all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement to the “Manager” under that certain Common Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated February 15, 2022 and recorded February 23, 2022 as Document No. 25245387 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California (the "COREA"). Following such assignment, and the acceptance and assumption by the Manager of all such rights and obligations, Developer is relieved of all liability thereafter accruing hereunder, and the City will thereafter look to the Manager under the COREA, and the Owners as hereinafter provided, for performance of this Agreement. If and when Developer assigns its obligations hereunder to the Manager’s , the Manager under the COREA assumption of Developer’s obligations shall be perpetual.

5. Insurance; Contractors; Encroachment Permit; Compliance with Laws. Developer shall maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement, and Developer shall require all contractors engaged to perform any work pursuant to this Agreement to maintain at all time during the performance of the work pursuant to this Agreement, policies of insurance in form and amount acceptable to City, including without limitation, (a) commercial general liability insurance, (b) automobile liability insurance, (c) employer’s liability insurance, (d) business automobile liability insurance, and (e) worker’s compensation insurance. Developer has received a copy of City’s c u r r e n t required insurance schedule, which has been approved by Developer and City, and shall be complied with by Developer and the Association, when applicable, at all times. All work required of Developer pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed on behalf of Developer by licensed California contractors reasonably acceptable to City. At all times during the performance of work by Developer pursuant to this Agreement of work within the public right of way, Developer shall obtain from the City and maintain in effect, at Developer’s sole cost, an encroachment permit upon terms and conditions reasonably acceptable to the City, to enable Developer to perform the work required within the public right of way. Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, comply with all applicable Laws in the performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

Thirty (30) days advance written notice must be given to City prior to termination, cancellation or modification of any such insurance policies. The insurance specified above shall name City as an additional insured. Developer hereby waives all rights to recover against City for any loss or damage arising from a cause covered by the insurance required to be carried pursuant to this Agreement or actually carried by Developer in connection with the work described in this Agreement, and will cause each insurer to waive all rights of subrogation against City in connection therewith. All policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and not on a claims made basis and shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to City. Prior to commencing any work pursuant to this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to City the insurance company's certificate evidencing the required coverage, or if required by City a copy of the policies obtained.

6. Licenses and Permits. Developer warrants to City that, except for the encroachment permit, it has all applicable licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Developer to accomplish its obligations under this Agreement. Developer represents and warrants to the City that it shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any applicable licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Developer to accomplish

8.5 p. 95 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 5
its obligations.

7. Indemnity. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses, costs, expense, injuries, damages, judgments, findings, awards, suits and proceedings (including without limitation costs for staff time, copying costs, court costs and attorneys’ fees) (collectively, “Claims and Liabilities”) arising out of, or in connection with:
(a) the design, construction or installation of the Landscape Improvements occurring prior to completion of such installation, the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement by Developer or their respective agents, employees, contractors or sub-contractors, and/or any breach of any obligation of Developer under this Agreement; and/or
(b) any violation or claim of violation of any current law, rule or regulation applicable to any portion or aspect of the Landscape Improvements by Developer or its agents, employees, contractors, or sub-contractors;
excepting only Claims and Liabilities caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees in the performance of their obligations as the elected and appointed officials, agents and employees of City. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement to provide the broadest possible coverage for the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees.

8. City’s Right to Cure Developer’s Default.
(a) If Developer breaches any of its obligations under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, and any breach of each and every material term and condition contained herein the breach is not cured within ten (10) days (or such longer period as may be specified in the Notice of Breach in City’s sole and absolute discretion) after the City gives written notice (“Notice of Breach”) to the Developer of the failure to perform, City shall have the right (but not the obligation), in addition to all other rights available to City under this Agreement, by law, or in equity, to enter upon the Frontage Landscape Area and perform all or any portion of Developer’s obligation at Developer’s sole cost, and all costs incurred by City shall be reimbursed by Developer to City not later than ten (10) days after written demand for payment is delivered to Developer. Any costs so incurred by City in performing Developer’s obligations under Section 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7, which are not paid by Developer when due, shall bear interest from the date due until fully paid at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.
(b) Delay by City in giving a Notice of Breach shall not constitute a waiver of any breach or default. Any failures or delays by City in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, nor deprive City of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies.(c) The City shall not perform such

8.5 p. 96 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 6
maintenance activities upon breach of Developer’s duties under this Agreement if the default cannot reasonably be cured within the 10-day cure period. In that event, Developer shall have such additional reasonable time as may be necessary to cure the default provided Developer commences the cure within the 10-day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
(d) Developer hereby grants permission to the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, contractors and other representatives to enter the Frontage Landscape Area at reasonable times to inspect the Frontage Landscape Area and Landscape Improvements to determine if Developer is complying with its obligations under this Agreement and, in the event of a continuing default of its obligations under this Section 8, Developer hereby grants permission to the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, employees, contractors and other representatives to enter the Frontage Landscape Area at reasonable times to perform Developer’s obligations pursuant to this Section 8. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit any access or other rights City may have as it relates to the portion of the Frontage Landscape Area within the public right of way, it being acknowledged and agreed by Developer that City’s rights with respect to the public right of way shall not be diminished by this Agreement and that Developer’s consent is not required as it relates to any portion of the public right of way.
(e) To the fullest extent allowed by law, Developer hereby waives any and all claims it may now or hereafter have against City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors and other representatives as a result of entry onto the Frontage Landscape Area by City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors and other representatives pursuant to this Section 8, including without limitation claims for personal injury, death and damage to property except to the extent resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors or other representatives.

9. Developer not Agent of City. Neither Developer nor any of its agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of City in connection with the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.

10. Notices. Notices required or permitted to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be served personally, or sent by pre-paid United States certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight courier, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
ATTN: Director of Public Works/City Engineer

8.5 p. 97 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 7
With copies to: City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
ATTN: City Manager
Proof of insurance to be filed with:

CITY: City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.

Gilroy, California 95020
ATTN: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DEVELOPER, or MANAGER:

Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C.
2390 East Camelback Rd, #410
Phoenix, AZ, 85016
Attn: Alex Gonzalez
and, in the event that Developer hereafter conveys the fee interest in the Property or any portion thereof, to each successive Owner as shown on the tax rolls for Santa Clara County, California as to which City is given written notice of transfer. Notices shall be effective upon delivery to the required address, or upon attempted delivery thereof if delivery is refused by the intended recipient or if delivery is prevented because the intended recipient has failed to provide a reasonable means for accomplishing delivery. Any party may change its address for notice purposes from time to time by giving written notice by authorized means to all other parties.

11. Recordation: Term; Covenant Running With the Land. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, the City shall have the right to record this Agreement with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California (“Official Records”). The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date that it is signed by Developer and City, and shall continue thereafter in perpetuity unless and until terminated in writing signed by City and all persons and entities then being an Owner of all or any portion of the Property and recorded in the Official Records.

This Agreement pertains to and runs with the Property and every part thereof and shall be deemed to run with the land. Developer, on behalf of itself and all subsequent fee owners of all or any portion of the Property, hereby subjects the Property to all terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement shall bind each Owner now owning a fee interest in all or any portion of the Property, and all successors in interest of all or any portion of the fee interest in and to the Property, and all of their respective successors and assigns, each for the entire duration of its fee ownership of the Property, subject to this paragraph below. All obligations which accrue under this Agreement are the joint and several obligations of all Owners then having a fee ownership in all or any portion of the Property at the time of such accrual and at any time that such obligation has not been fully performed; provided however, that notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, in no event shall any obligation of any Owner be binding on the City, nor shall City be responsible for complying with

8.5 p. 98 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 8
the obligations of any Owner under this Agreement, notwithstanding that all or any portion of the Property or any portion of the Frontage Landscape Area, is owned by City or has been conveyed, granted or transferred to City unless agreed to in writing by the City (determined in the City’s sole and absolute discretion). In addition to this Agreement running with the land, all terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of City and any successor governmental entity of City whether or not City or such successor governmental entity is an owner of any interest in real property. As used in this Agreement, “Owner” shall mean any and all persons, firms, corporations or other legal entities which own fee title to all or any portion of the Property. The term “Owner” shall not include a mortgagee or beneficiary under a deed of trust holding a security interest in the Property unless such mortgagee or beneficiary has entered into actual physical possession of the Property or becomes a fee owner of any portion of the Property. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a transfer of any portion of the Property by an Owner to subsequent Owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing to the contrary, if this Agreement is assigned to and assumed by the Manager under the COREA, the City shall look first to the Manager for performance of this Agreement and agrees to accept such performance by the Manager as if performed by Developer or the Owners. However, no such assignment relieves the Owners from joint and several liability for the performance of all obligations set forth in this Agreement to the extent not performed by the Manager.

12. Property Transfer. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit a transfer by the Developer to subsequent owners and assigns, including but not limited to the Association.

13. Breach of Agreement. Any breach by Developer of the terms and conditions of this Agreement continuing uncured after notice and expiration of applicable grace period. shall be deemed a violation of the TM Approval and the A/S Approval. In addition to any other remedy available to City under this Agreement, by law or in equity, the City may bring an action against Developer to enforce the terms and conditions of the TM Approval, the A/S Approval and this Agreement.

14. Attorneys’ Fees. If any party to this Agreement resorts to a legal action to enforce or interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled.

15. Miscellaneous Terms and Provisions:
(a) If any provision of this Agreement is adjudged invalid, unenforceable or void, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in force and effect.
(b) The waiver of any party of any breach or violation of any provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any breach or violation of any other provision nor of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other provision.
(c) Except as set forth in this Agreement, no party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and

8.5 p. 99 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 9
of no effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Developer is entitled to hire a general contractor and subcontract such portions of the work to be performed under this Agreement and Developer shall have the right to assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement to the Manager under the COREA, in which event, Developer shall be fully released from its obligation hereunder. (d) Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement, the City does not undertake any responsibility or liability for any claim, demand, cause of action, damage, cost, expense, loss, or liability, in law or in equity, of any kind and nature whatsoever, that in any way arises from or is in any way connected to the execution of this Agreement and/or to the performance of any and all of the work or obligation under this Agreement except as otherwise provided herein. (e) Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is intended to confer any rights on any persons other than the parties to it and their representatives, successors and permitted assignees.
(f) This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties relating to Developer’s obligations with respect to the installation and maintenance of landscaping within the Frontage Landscape Area, and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations or statements, oral or written, are superseded hereby.
(g) The parties specifically acknowledge that the Project is a private development, that no party is acting as the agent of the others in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between or among the parties, or the affairs of City, or otherwise, or cause them to be considered joint venturers or members of any joint enterprise. (h) This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed reasonably and not against any party, regardless of the degree to which any party participated in its drafting. Each of the parties has received the advice of legal counsel prior to signing this Agreement. Each party acknowledges no other party or agent or attorney has made a promise, representation, or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, not contained herein concerning the subject matter herein to induce another party to execute this Agreement. The parties agree no provision or provisions may be subject to any rules of construction based upon any party being considered the party “drafting” this Agreement. When the context and construction so require, all words used in the singular herein shall be deemed to have been used in the plural, and the masculine shall include the feminine and neuter and vice versa.

Whenever a reference is made herein to a particular provision of this Agreement, it means and includes all paragraphs, subparagraphs and subparts thereof, and, whenever a reference is made herein to a particular paragraph or subparagraph, it shall include all subparagraphs and subparts thereof.
(i) All references in this Agreement to laws shall be understood to include such laws as they may be subsequently amended or recodified, unless otherwise specifically

8.5 p. 100 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 10
provided.
(j) All references to days herein are to calendar days, including Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, except as otherwise specifically provided. Unless otherwise required by a specific provision of this Agreement, time hereunder is to be computed excluding the first day and including the last day. (k) This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any respect except in writing signed by the parties.
(l) Each of the Exhibits identified is attached hereto and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.
(m) This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in that state and venue shall be in Santa Clara County, California. (n) The section headings or captions of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be deemed to define or limit the scope or intent of any of the provisions of this Agreement. No modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by City and all persons and entities that are then the Owners of the Property. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one instrument. [signatures begin on the following page]

8.5 p. 101 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084 11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Landscape Installation and Maintenance Agreement to be effective on the day and year set forth above.

Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company By: Evergreen Development Company-2019, L.L.C.,
An Arizona limited liability company
Its: Manager
By: Evergreen Devco, Inc.,
a California corporation
Its: Manager
By: __________________________
Its: ___________________________
Date: _________________________
CITY:

CITY OF GILROY,
a municipal corporation
By:

Name: Jimmy Forbis
Title: City Administrator
Date:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Thai Pham, City Clerk Andrew Faber, City Attorney

8.5 p. 102 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084

EXHIBIT A
Legal Description

8.5 p. 103 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084
Real property in the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE :

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM LEWIS J. SACULLO, ETUX, TO BELL AND GRIFFIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECORDED JULY 16, 1968 IN BOOK 8193, PAGE 31, OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BELL AND GRIFFIN PARCEL NORTH 19° 18’ 50" WEST 250.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BELL AND GRIFFIN PARCEL, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 70° 41’ 10" EAST 60.00 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 61° 18’ 00" EAST 134.54 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 19° 18’ 50" EAST 148.08 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 31, 1967 IN BOOK 7680 AT PAGE 394 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 65° 51’ 55" WEST 23.32 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF 10TH STREET (86 FEET WIDE), THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF 10TH STREET SOUTH 70° 41’ 10" WEST 126.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL IS ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL ONE AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED AS ON APRIL 20, 1971 AS BOOK 281, PAGE 46 OF PARCEL MAPS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL TWO :

COMMENCING AT A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF NINTH STREET WHICH BEARS NORTH 70° 03'
47" EAST 150.31 FEET AND SOUTH 19° 56' 13" EAST 30 FEET FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO RUDOLPH W.

YOUNG, A MARRIED MAN, RECORDED JULY 03, 1968 IN BOOK 8178 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 679, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEING AT THE CENTER LINE

INTERSECTION OF NINTH STREET WITH THE CENTER LINE OF THE PROPOSED CHESTNUT

STREET EXTENSION AS SAID POINT IS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "OFFICIAL PLAN LINES FOR CHESTNUT STREET", AS SAID MAP WAS RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF PLAN LINE MAPS, AT PAGES 63 AND 64, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE PROPOSED CENTER LINE OF CHESTNUT STREET SOUTH 19° 56' 13" EAST 330.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID POINT NORTH 70° 03' 47" EAST 43.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 70° 03' 47" EAST 206.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED TO RUDOLPH W.

YOUNG, A MARRIED MAN; THENCE SOUTH 19° 56' 13" EAST ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE 200 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE SAID PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE

DEED TO YOUNG, ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE PROPOSED NEW TENTH STREET EXTENSION; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE

OF SAID PARCEL DEEDED TO YOUNG AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PROPOSED NEW TENTH STREET EXTENSION SOUTH 70° 03' 47" WEST 166.69 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 00" SECONDS WITH A RADIUS OF 40 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 62.83 FEET TO A

POINT ON THE MOST EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE SAID NOW PROPOSED NEW CHESTNUT STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT STREET NORTH 19° 56' 13" WEST 160 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

8.5 p. 104 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084
PARCEL THREE :

BEING A PORTION OF SUB LOT XXI AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 8 ACCOMPANYING THE FINAL REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN THE LAS ANIMAS RANCHO PARTITION SUIT, ACTION NO. 5536

HAD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT AN IRON PIPE IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF NINTH STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM M.E THOMAS, ET AL., TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND THE CITY OF GILROY, DATED AUGUST 10, 1928 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1928 IN BOOK 441 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 99 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, DISTANT THEREON N. 70° E. 530.00 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE

SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM BERNIS C. STEIDLEY, ET AL., TO B.M. KLINK, ET UX, DATED JUNE 4, 1952 AND RECORDED JUNE 4, 1952 IN BOOK 2429 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 480, AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF NINTH STREET, N. 70° E. 161.36 FEET, THENCE S. 20° E. 500.00 FEET; THENCE S. 70° W. 201.36 FEET THENCE N. 20° W. 250.00 FEET; THENCE N. 70° E. 40.00 FEET AND N. 20° W. 250.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE ABOVE LYING WITHIN THE FOLLOWING:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM LEWIS J. SACULO, ET UX, TO BELL AND GRIFFIN, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECORDED JULY 16, 1968 IN BOOK 8193, PAGE 31, OFFICIAL

RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID BELL AND GRIFFIN PARCEL NORTH 19° 18’ 50" WEST 250.00 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID BELL AND GRIFFIN PARCEL, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 70° 41’ 10" EAST 60.00 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 61° 18’ 00" EAST 134.54 FEET, THENCE SOUTH 19° 18’ 50" EAST 148.08 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 31, 1967 IN BOOK 7680 AT PAGE 394 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 65° 51’ 55" WEST 23.32 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF 10TH STREET (86 FEET WIDE), THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF 10TH STREET SOUTH 70° 41’ 10" WEST 126.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL IS ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL TWO AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP RECORDED AS ON APRIL 20, 1971 AS BOOK 281, PAGE 46 OF PARCEL MAPS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL FOUR :

BEING A PORTION OF SUB LOT XXI AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 8, ACCOMPANYING THE FINAL REPORT OF THE REFEREES IN THE LAS ANIMAS RANCHO PARTITION SUIT, ACTION NO.

8.5 p. 105 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084
5536 HAD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERNMOST CORNER OF THAT 2.1 ACRE TRACT OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO BELL AND GRIFFIN CO., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 18, 1965 IN BOOK 6854 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 51, SANTA CLARA COUNTY

RECORDS, IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF NINTH STREET AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM M.E. THOMAS, ET AL., TO THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND THE CITY OF GILROY, DATED AUGUST 10, 1928 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 13, 1928 IN BOOK 441 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 99, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE SOUTH 20° EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID 2.1 ACRE TRACT OF LAND 486.88 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS PARCEL 1A IN THAT FINAL

ORDER OF CONDEMNATION IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CASE NO. 191007 DATED MARCH 28, 1968, RECORDED APRIL 5, 1968 IN BOOK 8081 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 42, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FOR THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES AND DISTANCES: ALONG A CURVE NORTHEASTERLY TO THE LEFT FROM A TANGENT THAT BEARS NORTH 60° 06’ 14" EAST, WITH A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 37° 19’ 12", AN ARC LENGTH OF 227.98 FEET AND NORTH 22° 47’ 32" EAST 509.22 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID NINTH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 79° WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF NINTH STREET FOR A DISTANCE OF 536.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

8.5 p. 106 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084
EXHIBIT B - Landscape Frontage Areas in the Public Right of Way to be Maintained by Developer Under this Agreement

8.5 p. 107 of 947
4826-2681-7046v5
KKS\04706084
EXHIBIT C - Approved Landscape Plans

8.5 p. 108 of 947
-1- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Gilroy
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

Thai Pham
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE)
Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01
PROJECT TITLE – Plaza Allium Commercial Center (Evergreen 10th & Chestnut)
APN’s: 841-66-036, 841-66-037, 841-66-038, & 841-66-039 Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited Liability Company

8.5 p. 109 of 947
-2- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT

COMMERCIAL

AGREEMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS, INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES,

ELECTRICAL, LANDSCAPE, AND OTHER PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES Property Improvement Agreement No. 2023-01
This Property Improvement Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2023, by and between the City of Gilroy, a municipal corporation, herein called the “City,” and Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C., an Arizona Limited Liability Company, herein called the “Developer”.

WHEREAS, a parcel map of subdivision, record of survey or building permit (Site Clearance) application has now been submitted to the City for approval and acceptance, covering certain real estate and property improvements known as and called: Plaza Allium (Evergreen 10th and Chestnut), a legal description of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” (the “Property”), and as described in the project improvement plans entitled Plaza Allium On-Site Improvement Plans, herein shown as Exhibit “B”, Plaza Allium Off-Site Improvement Plans, herein shown as Exhibit “C”, and Caltrans improvement plans entitled East 10th Street and Highway 101 Exit Ramp, herein shown as Exhibit “D”.

WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner of the Property and requires certain utilities and public works facilities in order to service the Property under the minimum standards established by the City and,
WHEREAS, the City, by and through its City Council, has enacted certain Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions and certain Rules and Regulations have been promulgated concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and,
WHEREAS, the City has certain responsibilities for maintenance and operation of such utilities and public service facilities after acceptance by City, and for providing the necessary connecting system, general plant and appurtenances, and the City is agreeing to discharge those responsibilities, provided that Developer has faithfully and fully complied with all of the terms, covenants, conditions to be performed by Developer pursuant to this Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and in order to carry on the intent and purpose of said Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions and Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California and the United States of America it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

SECTION 1
That all Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California and the United States of America concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are hereby referred to and incorporated herein to the same effect as if they were set out at length herein. Said Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rule and Regulations include, but are not limited to, the following: the Code of the City of Gilroy, the current Zoning Ordinance, and the currently adopted Uniform Building Code.

8.5 p. 110 of 947
-3- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
SECTION 2
The Developer agrees:
a. To perform each and every provision required by the City to be performed by the Developer in each and every one of said Codes, Ordinances, Resolution, Rules and other Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California and the United States of America, including without limitation, the California Labor Code and California Public Contract Code.

Developer further agrees and acknowledges that it is its obligation to determine whether, and to what extent, the work performed under this Agreement is subject to any Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and other Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California, the United States of America, the California Labor Code and Public Contract Code relating to public contracting and prevailing wage laws. b. To grant to the City without charge, free and clear of encumbrances, any and all easements and rights of way in and to the Property necessary for the City in order that its water, electricity, and/or sewer lines in or to said Property may be extended in locations reasonably acceptable to Developer. c. To indemnify, defend with counsel of City’s choice and hold the City free and harmless from all suits, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, costs, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses (including without limitation attorneys’ fees) incurred by City in connection with (i) any damage done to any utility, public facility or other material or installation of the City on said Property which the Developer or any contractor or subcontractor of the Developer, or any employee of the foregoing, shall do in grading or working upon said Property; or (ii) arising or resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of Developer or Developer’s contractors, or subcontractors, or any employee of the foregoing occurring during and in connection with the work performed by them in connection with this Agreement, including without limitation all claims relating to injury or death of any person or damage to any property.
d. To construct and improve all public works facilities and other improvements described in this Agreement substantially in accordance with the improvement plans submitted to the City of Gilroy in furtherance of this Agreement on file with the City of Gilroy. All construction and improvements shall be completed in accordance with all standards established in the Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations and established policies of the City and the laws of the State of California and the United States of America and this agreement, and in accordance with the grades, plans, substantially in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer. Developer shall furnish two good and sufficient bonds, a Payment Bond on a form provided by the City and a Faithful Performance Bond, both of which shall be secured from a surety company admitted to do business in California. Each bond shall set forth a time period for performance by the contractor of its obligations and the terms and conditions on which the City may obtain the proceeds of the bond.

The Faithful Performance Bond shall be in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated amount payable for the improvements described in this Agreement, and shall secure payment to City and the Developer of any loss due to the default of the contractor or its inability or refusal to perform its contract. The performance bond shall by its terms remain in full force and effect for a period of not less than one year after completion of the improvements by Developer and acceptance of the improvements by City, to guarantee the repair and replacement of defective material and faulty workmanship. Upon completion of the improvements by Developer and acceptance of the improvements by City, Developer may substitute for the performance bond securing maintenance described above, a separate maintenance bond issued by an admitted surety in

8.5 p. 111 of 947
-4- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
the amount of ten percent (10%) of the total contract price of the improvements (provided that the amount of said bond shall not be less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) to cover the one-year maintenance period).

The Payment Bond shall be in an amount not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total estimated amount payable for the improvements described in this Agreement. The Payment Bond shall secure the payment of those persons or entities to whom the Developer may become legally indebted for labor, materials, tools, equipment or services of any kind used or employed by the contractor or subcontractor in performing the work, or taxes or amounts to be withheld thereon. The Payment Bond shall provide that the surety will pay the following amounts should the Contractor or a Subcontractor fail to pay the same, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees to be fixed by the court if suit is brought upon the bond: (1) amounts due to any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100; (2) amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed for the improvements described in this Agreement; and (3) any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Contractor and Subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to the work and labor. The Payment Bond shall, by its terms, inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Civil Code Section 3181 so as to give a right of action to those persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond.

Simultaneously with the submission of its building permit application (Site Clearance), the Developer shall submit the following for both the surety that furnishes the Payment Bond and the surety that furnishes the Faithful Performance Bond: (1) a current printout from California Department of Insurance’s website (www.insurance.ca.gov) showing that the surety is admitted to do business in the State; or (2) a certificate from the Clerk of the County of Santa Clara that the surety’s certificate of authority has not been surrendered, revoked, canceled, annulled, or suspended or in the event that it has, that renewed authority has been granted. e. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, all plan check and inspection fees which are payable by Developer pursuant to the attached comprehensive fee schedule are due and payable to the City prior to Council approval of the final map of the subdivision. Upon approval of the record of survey or the building permit covering the real estate to be improved and before any work is done therein, the Developer shall pay to the City all other sums payable by Developer pursuant to the attached comprehensive fee schedule.
f. At all times during the term of this Agreement and until the improvements constructed by Developer are accepted by City, Developer shall, at no cost to City obtain and maintain (a) a policy of general liability and property damage insurance in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), combined single limit for both bodily injury and property damage; (b) workers’ compensation insurance as required by law; and (c) broad form “Builder’s Risk” property damage insurance with limits of not less than 100% of the estimated value of the improvements to be constructed by Developer pursuant to this Agreement.

All such policies shall provide that thirty (30) days written notice must be given in advance to City prior to termination, cancellation or modification. The insurance specified in (a) above shall name City as an additional insured and the insurance specified in (c) shall name City as a loss payee, and shall provide that City, although an additional insured or loss payee, may recover for any loss suffered by reason of the acts or omissions of Developer or Developer’s contractors or subcontractors or their respective employees. Developer hereby waives, and Developer shall cause each of its contractors and subcontractors to waive, all rights to recover against City for any loss or

8.5 p. 112 of 947
-5- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
damage arising from a cause covered by the insurance required to be carried pursuant to this Agreement or actually carried by Developer in connection with the work described in this Agreement, and will cause each insurer to waive all rights of subrogation against City in connection therewith. All policies shall be written on an occurrence basis and not on a claims made basis and shall be issued by insurance companies acceptable to City. Prior to commencing any work pursuant this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to City the insurance company’s certificate evidencing the required coverage, or if required by City a copy of the policies obtained.

SECTION 3
That all the provisions of this Agreement and all work to be done pursuant to the terms of this Agreement are to be completed to City’s satisfaction within (18) eighteen months from and after the date and year of this Agreement first above written. Developer shall maintain such public works facilities and other improvements described in this Agreement at Developer’s sole cost and expense at all times prior to acceptance by City in a manner which will preclude any hazard to life or health or damage to property.

SECTION 4
That the faithful and prompt performance by the Developer of each and every term and condition contained herein is made an express condition precedent to the duty of the City to perform any act in connection with this transaction, and the failure, neglect or refusal of the Developer to so perform, or to pay any monies due hereunder when due shall release the City from any and all obligations hereunder and the City, at its election, may enforce the performance of any provision herein, or any right accruing to the City or may pursue any remedy whatsoever it may have under applicable laws or the Codes, Ordinances, Resolutions, Rules and Regulations of the City, in the event of any such default by Developer.

SECTION 5
SECTION 6 That this Agreement, including without limitation the general stipulations outlined in Section 6 below, is an instrument affecting the title or possession of the real property and runs with the land. Except as expressly provided in the second sentence of Item 9 of the general stipulations set forth in Section 6 below (relating to the payment of reimbursement to the original Developer named in this Agreement), all the terms, covenants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of City, Developer, the successors in interest of Developer, their respective successors and permitted assigns and all subsequent fees owners of the Property. The obligations of the Developer under this Agreement shall be the joint and several obligations of each and all of the parties comprising Developer, if Developer consists of more than one individual and/or entity. Upon the sale or division of the Property, the terms of this Agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the fee owners of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Developer by this Agreement

1. That the following general stipulations shall be completed subject to the approval of the Public Works Director/City Engineer.

2. The Project shall comply with all Tentative Map conditions and applicable mitigation measures as contained in City Council Resolution 2021-52 (TM 20-03 approval).

3. All work within the public right-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

8.5 p. 113 of 947
-6- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

4. The Developer shall perform all work in compliance with the City of Gilroy Specifications Standards Design Criteria, and is subject to all laws of this community by reference. Street improvements and the design of all storm drainage, sewer lines, and all street sections shall be in accordance with City Standards and shall follow the most current City Master plan for streets and each utility.

5. The developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning Commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its City Council, Planning Commission, agents, officer, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or other board, advisory agency, or legislative claim, action, or proceeding against it, and will cooperate fully in the defense.

This condition is imposed pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.9.

6. No building permit shall be issued in connection with this project if the Owner or Developer of such development (i) is not in compliance with the City’s Residential Development Ordinance (City Zoning Ordinance Sections 50.60 et seq.) referred to as the RDO, any conditions of approval issued in connection with such development or other City requirements applicable to such development; or (ii) is in default continuing uncured after 10 days written notice under any agreement entered into with the City in connection with such development pursuant to the RDO. The project must also comply with any condition of exemption granted from the RDO, including but not limited to time limits in obtaining City approvals and completion of construction of the dwelling units.

7. The City shall be notified at least two (2) working days prior to the start of any construction work and at that time the contractor shall provide a project schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.

8. At least one week prior to commencement of work, the developer shall post the site and mail to owners of property within (500’) five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, to the homeowner associations of nearby residential projects and to the Engineering Division, a notice that construction work will commence on or around the stated date. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to initiate corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for dust, noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice.

9. If the developer proposes to phase construction with building occupancy, the developer shall create, for City Engineer approval prior to first occupancy, a construction staging plan that addresses the ingress and egress location for all construction vehicles, parking and material storage area separate from occupied residential units.

10. Locate and properly dispose of any wells, septic tanks and underground fuel storage facilities.

NOTE: The capping of any well will require inspection by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

11. Schedule the construction of improvements along existing public roads so that the work affecting vehicular traffic is completed with a minimum interruption to traffic.

12. All work shall be coordinated so that the existing residents on all adjacent streets have access to their properties.

8.5 p. 114 of 947
-7- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

13. Before construction utilizing combustible materials may proceed, an all-weather access must be provided to within 150 feet of the building site; and at least one in service fire hydrant must be available within 150 feet of each portion of the site wherein this construction is to take place.

Location of the fire hydrants will be determined by the Fire Chief.

14. A complete construction schedule, which shall include a detailed phasing plan (including traffic control for each proposed phase), shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to start of construction. Any deviation from the approved construction schedule and phasing plan shall be coordinated with the City Engineer. Deviating from the approved construction schedule and phasing plan without prior coordination with the City Engineer may prolong issuance of further building permits.
(a) Upon request by the City Engineer, the developer shall provide information for public outreach purposes, which may include maps and schedules for each phase of construction.

15. One hard copy and electronic copy of the approved/stamped PG&E Joint Trench Composite Plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division. Should there be a delay in obtaining the PG&Eapproved joint trench plans, the Developer will be allowed to commence joint trench work “atrisk”. The Developer assumes responsibility for any required redesign, and all costs associated with the redesign and additional city review resulting from the at-risk work completed without PG&Eapproved joint trench plans. Design revisions and ultimate joint trench construction shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

16. The developer shall obtain the required Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Permit and pay the applicable fees prior to the issuance of a grading permit or improvement plan approval.

17. Site preparation and fill construction shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a licensed soils or geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the City of Gilroy stating that all site preparation and fill construction meets the requirements of the geotechnical investigation.

This shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division. [CBC]

18. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved soils report and shall meet with the approval of the City Engineer.

19. New and existing utility lines, appurtenances, and associated equipment, including but not limited to electrical transmission, street lighting, and cable television shall be required to be placed underground. [Municipal Code Section 21, Article V]

20. Construction activity shall be restricted to the period between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. No work shall be done on Sundays and City Holidays. The City Engineer will apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school commute routes.

21. Any damage resulting from project construction operations to existing city infrastructure on or adjacent to the subject property shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, at the full expense of the developer/contractor. This shall include slurry seal, overlay, street reconstruction, and repair to curb, gutter and sidewalk, driveway approach if reasonably deemed warranted by the City Engineer.

8.5 p. 115 of 947
-8- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

22. This project is subject to post-construction stormwater quality requirements per Section 27D of the Gilroy Municipal Code.

23. Storm water BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement (a) Prior to the issuance of any building permit requiring stormwater management BMPs or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer, the owner(s) of the site shall enter into a formal written Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City. The City shall record this agreement, against the property or properties involved, with the County of Santa Clara and it shall be binding on all subsequent owners of land served by the storm water management treatment BMPs. The City-standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by Public Works Engineering. (b) This Agreement shall require that the BMPs not be modified and BMP maintenance activities not alter the designed function of the facility from its original design unless approved by the City prior to the commencement of the proposed modification or maintenance activity. (c) This Agreement shall also provide that in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety, the city shall have the authority to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the owner.
(d) All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be operated and maintained in good condition and promptly repaired/replaced by the property owner(s), an owners’ or homeowners’ association or other legal entity approved by the City. (e) Any repairs or restoration/replacement and maintenance shall be in accordance with Cityapproved plans. (f) The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance schedule for the life of any stormwater management facility and shall describe the maintenance to be completed, the time period for completion, and who shall perform the maintenance. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Runoff Management Plan.

24. Stormwater BMP Inspections will be required for this project and shall adhere to the following:
(a) The property owner(s) shall be responsible for having all stormwater management facilities inspected for condition and function by a knowledgeable third party. (b) Unless otherwise required by the City Engineer or designee, stormwater facility inspections shall be done at least twice per year, once in Fall, in preparation for the wet season, and once in Winter. Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information:

1. Site address;

2. Date and time of inspection;

3. Name of the person conducting the inspection;

4. List of stormwater facilities inspected;

5. Condition of each stormwater facility inspected;

6. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and

7. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection.

8.5 p. 116 of 947
-9- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

25. Upon completion of each inspection, an inspection report shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report.

26. A minimum of one exterior monument shall be set. Additional monuments can be required by the City Engineer or City Surveyor as deemed necessary. Location of monuments shall be tied out prior to work.

27. In accordance with the California Professional Land Surveyors’ Act (Business and Professions Code) Chapter 15 Sections 8771 and 8725, California Penal Code 605, and California Government Code 27581, the developer, their employees, subcontractors, and/or any person performing construction activities that will or may disturb an existing roadway/ street monument, corner stake, or any other permanent surveyed monument shall show all current monuments on the plans and shall ensure that a Corner Record and/or Record of Survey are filed with the County Surveyor Office prior to disturbing said monuments. All disturbed or destroyed monuments shall be reset and filed in compliance with Section 8771 at the developer’s sole expense.

28. Bonding as required by section 2.d of this agreement will be accepted for the proposed improvements for an amount of $3,295,114 (three million two hundred ninety five thousand one hundred fourteen dollars ) as shown on the attached Cost Estimate spreadsheet.

29. If there are any reimbursements payable to the Developer, they must be specifically identified in this Agreement. Any such reimbursements shall be payable to the original Developer named in this Agreement above, and shall not inure to the benefit of any subsequent owners of all or any portion of the Property. All reimbursements payable to Developer shall be subject to the City’s reimbursement policies and ordinances in effect from time to time, including without limitation any expiration dates identified in such policies and ordinances. Such reimbursement shall be solely contingent upon the availability of the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Funds and in no case shall the reimbursement be paid beyond ten (10) years after the execution of the Agreement. In addition to any other conditions, requirements and limitations set forth in the City’s reimbursement policies and ordinances from time to time, (i) in no event shall any reimbursements be payable to Developer if City determines in its sole and absolute discretion from time to time that there are not sufficient reserves then on hand in the specific reimbursement fund from which Developer’s reimbursement is payable, over and above any amounts anticipated to be required to be expended from such reimbursement fund, which reserves, at a minimum, are equal to at least half of the remaining average yearly anticipated expenditures of such reimbursement fund as determined by City from time to time; (ii) City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, make partial reimbursement payments to Developer in yearly increments, as determined by City; and (iii) City may defer payments in any given year if projects deemed by City to be of high importance are determined by City, in its sole and absolute discretion, to be warranted or necessary, and the funds in such reimbursement fund are designated by the City for use on such projects of high importance.

8.5 p. 117 of 947
-10- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
SECTION 7
That the attached Development Cost Schedule enumerates all fees and their extensions.

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CITY $667,453.78

8.5 p. 118 of 947
-11- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091

CITY OF GILROY
By:

Jimmy Forbis
City Administrator

Date:

ATTEST:

Thai Pham, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Andrew L. Faber, City Attorney

8.5 p. 119 of 947
-12- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
DEVELOPER:

Evergreen-10th & Chestnut, L.L.C.,
an Arizona limited liability company
By: Evergreen Development Company-2019, L.L.C.,
An Arizona limited liability company
Its: Manager
By: Evergreen Devco, Inc.,
A California corporation
Its: Manager
By:
(signature)

(print name)
Title:

Date:

NOTE: If Developer is a corporation, the complete legal name and corporate seal of the corporation and the corporate titles of the persons signing for the corporation shall appear above.

8.5 p. 120 of 947
-13- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description

Real property in the City of Gilroy, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows:

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. (TO FOLLOW), BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING:

PARCEL ONE: (APN: 841-66-011 AND A PORTION OF 841-66-010)

ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF GILROY,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING ALL OF THE LANDS OF CHESTNUT SQUARE LLC DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 19138334, AND A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 20067348, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF CHESTNUT

SQUARE LLC, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF CHESTNUT SQUARE LLC, AND ENTERING SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC NORTH 70° 03' 03" EAST, 227.94 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 19° 56' 13" EAST, 200.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC;

THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC, AND SAID LANDS OF CHESTNUT SQUARE LLC SOUTH 70° 03' 03" WEST, 187.93 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF CHESTNUT SQUARE LLC THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES;

1. ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 43", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 62.84 FEET;

2. THENCE NORTH 19° 56' 13" WEST, 160.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL IS SHOWN AS RESULTANT PARCEL 1 IN THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 2021-05 (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) FILED FOR RECORD FEBRUARY 22, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 25244509, SANTA CLARA RECORDS.

PARCEL TWO: (APN: PORTIONS OF 841-66-010, 841-66-014 & 841-66-015)

ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF GILROY,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THE LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 20067348, AND A PORTION OF PARCELS 1 & 2 OF THE LANDS OF 450 EAST LLC DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO. 20067349, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS OF CHESTNUT SQUARE LLC, DESCRIBED IN DOC. NO. 19138334, COMMON TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST AND 450 EAST LLC, THENCE

8.5 p. 121 of 947
-14- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 19° 56' 13" WEST, 49.79 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST AND 450 EAST LLC;

THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST AND 450 EAST LLC, NORTH 70° 03' 47" EAST, 60.03 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF THE LANDS OF 450 EAST LLC;
THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE NORTH 70° 03' 47" EAST, 40.01 FEET; THENCE ENTERING SAID PARCEL 1, THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:

1. SOUTH 19° 56' 13" EAST, 6.06 FEET;

2. THENCE NORTH 70° 03' 03" EAST, 161.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, COMMON TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 OF THE LANDS OF 450 EAST LLC;
THENCE ALONG SAID COMMON LINE, NORTH 19° 56' 13" WEST, 35.50 FEET; THENCE ENTERING SAID PARCEL 2 THE FOLLOWING FIVE (5) COURSES:

1. NORTH 70° 03' 03" EAST; 36.71 FEET;

2. NORTH 22° 09' 25" EAST, 58.50 FEET;

3. SOUTH 67° 57' 04" EAST, 30.00 FEET;

4. NORTH 22° 09' 25" EAST, 137.71 FEET;

5. THENCE SOUTH 67° 50' 35" EAST, 193.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, SAID PARCEL 1, AND SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST AND 450 EAST LLC THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4) COURSES:

1. SOUTH 22° 09' 25" WEST, 206.23 FEET;

2. ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET, HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43° 04' 23", AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 263.12 FEET;

3. SOUTH 65° 13' 48" WEST, 100.14 FEET;

4. THENCE SOUTH 70° 03' 03" WEST, 105.63 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC; THENCE ENTERING SAID LANDS OF TRIOLO TRUST & 450 EAST LLC THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) COURSES:

1. NORTH 19° 56' 13" WEST, 200.21 FEET;

2. THENCE SOUTH 70° 03' 03" WEST, 21.28 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL IS SHOWN AS RESULTANT PARCEL 2 IN THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 2021-05 (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT) FILED FOR RECORD FEBRUARY 22, 2022 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 25244509, SANTA CLARA RECORDS.

APN: 841-66-010 and 841-66-011 and 841-66-014 and 841-66-015

8.5 p. 122 of 947
-15- 9/18/12 JH\04706091
4828-0143-8026v3

8.5 p. 123 of 947
-16- 9/18/12 JH\04706091
4828-0143-8026v3

8.5 p. 124 of 947
-17- 9/18/12 JH\04706091
4828-0143-8026v3

8.5 p. 125 of 947
-18- 9/18/12 4828-0143-8026v3
JH\04706091
EXHIBIT E – FEES

8.5 p. 126 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
ENCOMPASS NO: E1 21110014 Revised:

DATE: 2/3/2023 Revision By:

NUMBER:

PROJECT LOCATION:

PARCEL NUMBER:

OWNER/DEVELOPER:

MAILING ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE NO:

PREPARED BY:

Account No. Key Code Fee: Credits: Amount Due: Account Description: Paid on Invoice # 100-2601-0000-3625 4904 $38,000.00 * $38,000.00 Special Public Works Serv 100-2601-0000-3605 4702 $283,089.58 $20,000.00 * $263,089.58 Eng Plan Check & Insp 1/21/22 #341189647 420-2600-0000-3660 4501 $0.00 ** $0.00 Storm Development Fee 432-2600-0000-3660 3301 $4,563.20 * $4,563.20 Str Tree Development Fee 433-2600-0000-3660 4905 $0.00 ** $0.00 Traffic Impact Fee 433-2600-0000-3660 4905 $168,400.00 * $168,400.00 Off-Site Mitigation 433-2600-0000-3660 4905 $190,500.00 * $190,500.00 Fair Share Amount 435-2600-0000-3660 4509 $0.00 ** $0.00 Sewer Development Fee 436-2600-0000-3660 4510 $0.00 ** $0.00 Water Development Fee 440-2600-0000-3660 4515 $0.00 ** $0.00 Public Facility Fee 422-2600-0000-3660 $2,901.00 * $2,901.00 Stormwater Management Fee 422-2600-0000-3859 $0.00 $0.00
720-0433-0000-3620 2202 $0.00 $0.00 Const Water Use Fee 801-2601-PWD0-3899 4703 $0.00 $0.00 Reimbursements
801-2601-PWD0-3899 4703 $0.00 $0.00 Other Reimbursements Fee Total $687,453.78 Total $667,453.78
Payment Bond Amount for all improvements $3,295,114
Performance Bond Amount for all improvements $3,295,114 * Master Developer to make payment for these items, $667,453.78, due prior to City Council Approval. ** Fees to be calculated and invoiced during the building permit phase by each Parcel Developer. Fees shall be paid prior to building permit. 9th Street, 10th Street and Chestnut Street
841-66-011, 841-66-010, 841-66-014, 841-66-015
Evergreen / Alex Gonzalez
2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Stormwater Trash
Amendment Compliance
Fee

CITY OF GILROY

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

COST ESTIMATE
EFFECTIVE 7/1/2022
Revision Number:
(602) 567-7171
W. Hill

ENGINEERING DIVISION

8.5 p. 127 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
ENCOMPASS NO: E1 21110014
DATE:

NUMBER:

PROJECT LOCATION:

PARCEL NUMBER:

OWNER/DEVELOPER:

MAILING ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE NO:

PREPARED BY:

FINAL ENGINEERING
COST SCHEDULE TYPE: COST ESTIMATE ? y PLAN CHECK ? N
DEFER PUBLIC FACILITY FEE ? TO PERMIT ? N TO FINAL ? N
DEFER SEWER, WATER, TRAFFIC FEES ? TO PERMIT ? N TO FINAL ? N NOTE: This Preliminary Cost Schedule is an estimate and will be adjusted to the rates in effect at the time permits are issued.

Site Information: Gross Acres: Lots/Parcels: Units: Sq Ft:

Residential-Low ? 0.000 0 0
Residential-High ? 0.000 0 0
Commercial-Low ? 0.000 0 0
Commercial-High ? 6.913 6 0
Industrial-General ? 0.000 0 0
Industrial-Warehouse ? 0.000 0 0
Assembly Hall? 0.000 0 0
Common Area? 0.000 0
# of Stormwater Management BMP 7
Commercial/Industrial Allocations: Sewer GPD: Water GPD:
0 0
Reimbursements and credits:

Front Footage/Square Footage Charges
Street Tree FF: Water FF: Sewer FF: Storm FF: Const Water Acres to be Developed:
1,240.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.000
Pavement SF: Median SF: Sidewalk SF: Curb/Gutter FF: Construction Water FF:

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SPECIAL PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES 100-2601-0000-3625 $38,000.00 Maps:

Final Map $8,000.00 (First two reviews) N $0.00 Fee ID N0-FINALM Parcel Map $5,000.00 (First two reviews) Y $5,000.00 Fee ID N0-PARCELM Re-assessment Map (Assessment District Parcels)
$5,000.00 (First two reviews) N $0.00 Fee ID N-ASSESM
Administration Fees:
(Cost Schedules, Agreements, R/W Reviews, Additional Map Reviews, and Other Misc. Services) 150 hr Misc Services $220.00 / hr. Y $33,000.00 Fee ID N-MISC Special Staff Analysis
0 hr Special Analysis $150.19 / hr. N $0.00
(602) 567-7171
W. Hill
9th Street, 10th Street and Chestnut Street
841-66-011, 841-66-010, 841-66-014, 841-66-015
Evergreen / Alex Gonzalez
INCENTIVE AGREEMENT ONLY ?
3-Feb-2023
2390 East Camelback Road, Suite 410, Phoenix, Arizona 85016

CITY OF GILROY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION

COST ESTIMATE

8.5 p. 128 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK & INSPECTION 100-2601-0000-3605 COST ESTIMATE $283,089.58 ACTUAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FINAL ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK $0.00 Additional Plan Review After First Three Submittals or Review of Changes, Additions or Revisions to Approved Plans 0 hr Additional Plan Review $150.19 / hr. N $0.00 Fee ID N0-GRADINS (2 Hour Minimum)
Re-Inspection Fee
0 hr Re-Inspection $162.00 / hr. N $0.00 Fee ID N0-GRADINS Inspections outside of normal business hours
0 hr Inspection $435.00 / hr. N $0.00 Fee ID N0-GRADINS

COST ACTUAL
(Based on total cost of improvements) ESTIMATE COST DIFFERENCE ($283,089.58) Estimated Cost of Improvements $3,295,114 $0 Fee ID N0-PCKINSP

12.6% $0 $100,000 Y $12,600.00 Y $0.00

10.5% $100,000 $200,000 Y $10,500.00 Y $0.00

8.4% over $200,000 Y $259,989.58 Y $0.00
Payment Bond Amount for all improvements $3,295,114
Performance Bond Amount for all improvements $3,295,114

IMPACT FEES
Storm Drain Impact Fee 420-2600-0000-3660 $0.00
a.Residential-Low $598.00 / acre N $0.00 Fee ID N0-SD-LD b.Residential-High $940.00 / acre N $0.00 Fee ID N0-SD-HD c.Commercial $1,621.00 / acre N $0.00 Fee ID N0-SD-C
d.Industrial $1,197.00 / acre N $0.00 Fee ID N0-SD-I
e.Assembly Hall $598.00 / acre N $0.00 Fee ID N0-SD-AH
Street Tree Fee 432-2600-0000-3660 $4,563.20
a.City Inspection and Replacement
$3.68 / f.f. x Y 1,240.0 = $4,563.20 Fee ID N0-TREEPLT
b.Inspection and Replacement
$0.00 / f.f. x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N0-TREEINS
Traffic Impact Fee 433-2600-0000-3660 $0.00
a.Residential-Low $13,012.00 / unit N $0.00 Fee ID N1-TRAF-LD b.Residential-High $10,548.00 / unit Y $0.00 Fee ID N2-TRAF-HD c.Commercial-Low Traffic
(< 10.75 trips/1000 sf) $14,397.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N3-TRAF-CL d.Commercial-High Traffic
(>= 10.75 trips/1000 sf) $29,082.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N3-TRAF-CH e.Industrial-General $5,705.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N4-TRAF-IG f.Industrial-Warehouse $4,135.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N4-TRAF-IW At time of Improvement Plan/Final Map submittal 50% of fee is due for Plan Check. Remainder 50% due prior to submittal of Final Map for Council approval

8.5 p. 129 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
Sewer Impact Fee 435-2600-0000-3660 $0.00
a.Residential-Low $13,262.00 / unit N $0.00 Fee ID N1-SS-LD b.Residential-High $7,176.00 / unit Y $0.00 Fee ID N2-SS-HD c.Commercial/Industrial $4,197.00 / cgpd N $0.00 Fee ID N5-SS-C/I Water Impact Fee 436-2600-0000-3660 $0.00
a.Residential-Low $4,556.00 / unit N $0.00 Fee ID N1-WATR-LD b.Residential-High $1,843.00 / unit Y $0.00 Fee ID N2-WATR-HD c.Commercial/Industrial $7,141.00 / kgpd N $0.00 Fee ID N5-WTR-C/I Public Facilities Impact Fee 440-2600-0000-3660 $0.00
a.Residential-Low $22,617.00 / unit N $0.00 Fee ID N1-PF-LD b.Residential-High $19,028.00 / unit Y $0.00 Fee ID N2-PF-HD c.Commercial $3,408.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N3-PF-C
d.Industrial $1,510.00 / k.s.f. N $0.00 Fee ID N4-PF-I
Stormwater Management Fee $2,901.00
$504.00 + $100.00 / additonal BMP Y $1,104.00 Fee ID SWBMP-IN 1st BMP
$413.00 + $31.00 / additonal BMP Y $1,797.00 Fee ID SWBMP-MF 1st BMP
$58.00 / month of delinquency N Fee ID SWBMP-DF
Water User Fee (Construction) 720-0433-0000-3620 Y $0.00 $3.00 / f.f. $0.00 Fee ID N0-CONWTFF
plus
$182.73 / a.c. $0.00 Fee ID N0-CONWTAC
FRONT FOOT CHARGES (Used to charge and reimburse fees for existing infrastructure) Water 801-2601-PWD0-3899 $0.00
Half Pipe Lineal Footage
6 inch Main $39.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR06-1/2 8 inch Main $41.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR08-1/2 10 inch Main $47.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR10-1/2 12 inch Main $52.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR12-1/2 14 inch Main $57.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR14-1/2 16 inch Main $62.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR16-1/2 18 inch Main $68.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR18-1/2 20 inch Main $76.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR18-1/2 24 inch Main $82.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR24-1/2 30 inch Main $91.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR30-1/2 36 inch Main $106.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-WR36-1/2 Water Mains - including fire hydrants, valves, valve boxes and other pertinences.

Developer responsibility is up to and including 12" mains c. Post-Construction
BMP annual
administration and
monitoring delinquent
fee
The Half Pipe schedule is used to determine the front footage reimbursement to former developers for infrastructure previously installed along the front footage of the development.

The Full Pipe schedule is used to determine the oversizing reimbursement to the developer for installing water, sewer, and storm main extensions to sizes required by each master plan that are greater than the sizes required by the development. The oversized portion is the difference between the master planned size for the main and the greater of the main size required by the development or the developer’s minimum responsibility for each main.
a. Post-Construction
BMP initial setup fee
b. Post-Construction
BMP annual
administration and
monitoring fee

8.5 p. 130 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
Front Foot Charges Continued (Used to charge and reimburse fees for existing infrastructure) Sewer 801-2601-PWD0-3899 $0.00
Half Pipe Lineal Footage
6 inch Main $73.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS06-1/2 8 inch Main $75.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS08-1/2 10 inch Main $81.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS10-1/2 12 inch Main $83.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS12-1/2 15 inch Main $87.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS15-1/2 18 inch Main $93.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS18-1/2 21 inch Main $102.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS21-1/2 24 inch Main $106.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS24-1/2 27 inch Main $122.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS27-1/2 30 inch Main $144.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS30-1/2 33 inch Main $158.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS33-1/2 36 inch Main $178.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS36-1/2 39 inch Main $212.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS39-1/2 42 inch Main $265.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SS42-1/2 Street Improvements 801-2601-PWD0-3899 $0.00
Pavement, Sidewalks & Medians Square Footage
AC/Bike path: base $2.55 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-ACB AC/Bike path: pvmt $2.50 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-ACP Sidewalk: new $9.75 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-S/W Sidewalk: replace $13.25 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-S/WR Resurfacing $2.55 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-RESU Landscaped Median $20.35 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-LANM Hardscaped Median $11.63 / SF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-HARD Traffic Signals (equipment only) % of Lump Sum
Traffic Signal-3 leg $130,200.00 / LS x N 0% = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-TS3L Traffic Signal-4 leg $158,500.00 / LS x N 0% = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-TS4L Curb and Gutter Lineal Footage
Curb/Gutter: new $25.85 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-C/G Curb/Gutter: replace $33.40 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-C/GR Curb Ramps $1,057.63 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-STR-CR Sewer Mains - including manhole and other pertinences.

Developer responsibility is up to and including 12" mains.

8.5 p. 131 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
Front Foot Charges Continued (Used to charge and reimburse fees for existing infrastructure) Storm Drain 801-2601-PWD0-3899 $0.00
Half Pipe Lineal Footage
18 inch Main $63.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD18-1/2 21 inch Main $69.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD21-1/2 24 inch Main $70.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD24-1/2 27 inch Main $82.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD27-1/2 30 inch Main $89.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD30-1/2 33 inch Main $91.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD33-1/2 36 inch Main $95.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD36-1/2 42 inch Main $99.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD42-1/2 48 inch Main $117.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD48-1/2 54 inch Main $137.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD54-1/2 60 inch Main $158.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD60-1/2 66 inch Main $179.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD66-1/2 72 inch Main $200.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD72-1/2 78 inch Main $216.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD78-1/2 84 inch Main $231.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD84-1/2 90 inch Main $246.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD90-1/2 96 inch Main $261.00 / LF x N 0.0 = $0.00 Fee ID N-SD96-1/2 All deferred and/or estimated fees will be adjusted to the rates in effect at the time fees are paid.

The undersigned agrees to provide actual construction costs for recalculation of fees and pay any underestimated fees prior to final acceptance. If the recalculated fees are less than the estimate, the City of Gilroy will refund the difference.

Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans, reinspections and inspections outside of normal business hours will be billed as shown in the City of Gilroy's most current comprehensive fee schedule at the hourly rates in effect at the time of inspection.

Accepted by:

Print Name:

Date:

Storm Mains - including manholes, catch basins and other pertinences.

Developer responsibility is up to and including 24" mains.

NOTE:

8.5 p. 132 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
OVERSIZING SCHEDULE (Used to reimburse oversized infrastructure) Total Oversized Water, Sewer and Storm Drain Main Reimbursement $0.00 Total Oversized Water Main Reimbursement (Developer is responsible for up to and including 12" mains) $0.00 Oversized Minimum 12" main Oversized
Full Pipe $/foot Full Pipe $/foot Oversized Footage Reimbursement 14 inch Main $114.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
16 inch Main $124.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
18 inch Main $135.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
20 inch Main $151.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
24 inch Main $164.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
30 inch Main $182.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
36 inch Main $211.00 - $104.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
Total Oversized Sewer Main Reimbursement (Developer is responsible for up to and including 12" mains) $0.00 Oversized Minimum 12" main Oversized
Full Pipe $/foot Full Pipe $/foot Oversized Footage Reimbursement 15 inch Main $174.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
18 inch Main $186.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
21 inch Main $204.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
24 inch Main $211.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
27 inch Main $244.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
30 inch Main $287.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
33 inch Main $315.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
36 inch Main $356.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
39 inch Main $423.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
42 inch Main $529.00 - $166.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
Total Oversized Storm Drain Main Reimbmnt (Developer is responsible for up to and including 24" mains) $0.00 Oversized Minimum 24" main Oversized
Full Pipe $/foot Full Pipe $/foot Oversized Footage Reimbursement 27 inch Main $164.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
30 inch Main $177.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
33 inch Main $182.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
36 inch Main $189.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
42 inch Main $197.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
48 inch Main $233.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
54 inch Main $273.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
60 inch Main $315.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N

8.5 p. 133 of 947
2/3/2023 1:28 PM
Oversizing Schedule Continued (Used to reimburse oversized infrastructure) Oversized Storm Drain Main Reimbmnt Continued
Oversized Minimum 24" main Oversized
Full Pipe $/foot Full Pipe $/foot Oversized Footage Reimbursement 66 inch Main $357.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
72 inch Main $399.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
78 inch Main $431.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
84 inch Main $461.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
90 inch Main $492.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N
96 inch Main $522.00 - $140.00 x 0.0 = $0.00 N

8.5 p. 134 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award of Contract to Kimley-Horn for the Update of the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation
Impact Fee Program in the Amount of $360,590 with a
10% Contingency for a Total of $396,649
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Daryl Jordan, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gary Heap, City Engineer
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

1. Award of Contract to Kimley-Horn for the Update of the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation Impact Fee Program (23-RFP-PW-479) in the Amount of $360,590 with a 10% contingency for a total of $396,649 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

2. Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy amending the budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and appropriating proposed expenditure amendments in the Traffic Impact Fee Program Fund.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City’s current Traffic Circulation Master Plan has not been updated since 2004. The Traffic Circulation Master Plan will be updated to correspond to the City’s recently adopted 2040 General Plan and recently updated 2040 Travel Demand Model.

Through an RFP process, staff is recommending that the City select Kimley Horn to perform this work. Staff recommends awarding a contract to Kimley-Horn in the amount of $360,590 with a 10% contingency for a total project cost of $396,649. This project will be funded out of the Traffic Impact Fee funds (Fund 425).

8.6 p. 135 of 947
Award of Contract to Kimley-Horn for the Update of the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation Impact Fee Program in the Amount of $360,590 with a 10% Contingency for a Total of $396,649
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 March 20, 2023

BACKGROUND
The City’s Traffic Circulation Master Plan (TCMP) has not been fully updated since 2004. With the recent update to the 2040 General Plan and travel demand model forecasts, the document needs revision for consistency. The update will evaluate all new or updated traffic segments, intersections, and bridges that are needed to support the 2040 General Plan growth expectations.

ANALYSIS
The TCMP update will include an evaluation of recommended transportation improvement projects based on the City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan and 2040 Travel Demand Model. The TCMP will identify all intersections that currently do not or are projected to not meet the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) standards and will determine the level of improvements needed to bring levels of service into compliance.

The traffic analysis will include a review of intersection operations, opportunities for needed improvements, and sufficient conceptual design to identify project challenges, project right-of-way needs, and preliminary cost estimates.

The project also includes the preparation of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study to develop an updated Traffic Impact Fee Program that complies with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (i.e., the Mitigation Fee Act), also known as AB 1600. This will require a review of current practices and a comparison of best practices from other surrounding communities of similar size in the San Francisco Bay Area. Additional improvements to be considered for funding in the updated TIF policy may include bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming improvements, and the cost for future model updates.

The TIF study and program update will include a Nexus Study to demonstrate that a reasonable relationship exists between the proposed transportation improvements and development projects. The Nexus Study will serve as the basis for requiring development impact fees under AB 1600 as required by California Code Government Section 66000 et seq.

The study will also identify the purpose of the fee and how the collected fees will be used, show that a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed, and identify a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public improvements that are attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

A Request for Proposals (RFP) was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News on September 30, 2022. Proposals were due November 4, 2022. The City received two proposals, one from Kimley-Horn and a second from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Both firms are bay area companies. After reviewing the proposals and conducting interviews with the two firms, staff selected Kimley-Horn as the firm to best perform the project work based on their qualifications and experience in similar projects.

Additional discussion was conducted with Kimley-Horn to fine-tune the project scope

8.6 p. 136 of 947
Award of Contract to Kimley-Horn for the Update of the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation Impact Fee Program in the Amount of $360,590 with a 10% Contingency for a Total of $396,649
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 March 20, 2023
(Attachment #1) and associated project cost (Attachment #2). A project schedule was also submitted which estimates the project to be completed in approximately nine months (Attachment #3).

Based on staff’s review of qualifications, experiences, and cost proposal, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract to Kimley-Horn in the amount of $360,590 plus a 10% contingency of $36,059, for a total amount of $396,649.

ALTERNATIVES
Council can decide not to approve the contract with Kimley-Horn. If not approved, the City would continue to use the outdated Traffic Circulation Master Plan document and outdated Traffic Impact Fee program. This will make it increasingly difficult to continue to plan for the future needs of the City’s travel network, given the expected growth indicated by the 2040 General Plan, and may limit our ability to collect sufficient developer traffic impact fees to support those future improvements.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The total proposal cost from Kimley-Horn is $360,590. Staff recommends including a 10% contingency of $36,059, to address any unforeseen issues that may arise during the plan development process, for a total design allocation of $396,649. This project will be funded out of the Traffic Impact Fee program (Fund 425). A budget amendment resolution is included and recommended for adoption to appropriate the expenditure.

Sufficient funds are available in the Traffic Impact Fee program fund for this project.

Attachments:

1. Traffic Circulation Master Plan Update Scope

2. Traffic Circulation Master Plan Cost

3. Traffic Circulation Master Plan Schedule

4. Draft Resolution

8.6 p. 137 of 947
Category/Title
Billing Rate $385.00 $330.00 $240.00 $215.00 $190.00 $165.00 $105.00 Total Hours Total Cost Task 1 22 26 26 12 18 104 $ 25,860.00

1.1 12 12 12 12 12 60 $ 14,100.001.2 24 4 10 $ 2,850.001.3 24 4 10 $ 2,850.001.4 66 6 6 24 $ 6,060.00 Task 2 18 56 4 192 136 106 512 $ 110,980.00

2.1 4 4 4 412 28 $ 6,960.002.2 Travel Demand Modeling (Hexagon)2.2.1 Update Base Year Model2.2.2 Identify Road Network Check Against 2004 TMP Improvements2.2.3 Review/Update 2040 Land Use Assumptions2.2.4 Model Output Data2.2.5 Modeling2.3 Update Future Land Use Data to 2050 (Optional)2.4 44 8 $ 2,860.002.5 100 100 $ 19,000.00

2.3.1 4 24 140 26 194 $ 43,850.002.3.2 2 124024 78 $ 17,290.002.3.3 2 4 32 38 $ 7,370.00

2.6 28 8 24 24 66 $ 13,650.00
Task 3 16 48 80 20 160 324 $ 75,900.00

3.1 424 40 68 $ 19,060.003.2 8 16 160 184 $ 38,760.003.3 2 4 20 26 $ 6,890.003.4 2 4 20 20 46 $ 11,190.00 Task 4 12 14 36 0 72 134 $ 31,560.00

4.1 8 8 24 60 100 $ 22,880.004.2 248 8 22 $ 5,530.004.3 224 4 12 $ 3,150.00 Task 5 10 10 0 8 24 52 $ 13,430.00

5.1 22 4 $ 1,430.005.2 44 8 16 32 $ 7,620.005.3 44 8 16 $ 4,380.00 Task 6 8 22 52 0 16 98 $ 25,860.00

6.1 444 12 $ 3,820.006.2 410 8 22 $ 5,240.006.3 28 8 18 $ 4,100.006.4 Travel Demand Management and Mitigation 446 14 $ 4,300.006.5 Documentation 416 20 $ 5,160.006.6 VMT Analysis Tool (TREDLite) 48 12 $ 3,240.00 86 176 172 220 434 118 18 1224
$ 33,110.00 $ 58,080.00 $ 41,280.00 $ 47,300.00 $ 82,460.00 $ 19,470.00 $ 1,890.00 $ 283,590.00 $ 73,580.00
$ 15,000.00$ 58,580.00
$ 357,170.00
$ 3,420.00
$ 360,590.00
Update Future Land Use Data to 2050 (Optiona 2.3) - Hexagon TOTAL COST WITH OPTIONAL TASKS:

Recommended Transportation ImprovementsPublic Engagement PlanDraftFinalConceptual Design DrawingsPreliminary Cost EstimatesAdditional Improvements for TIF PolicyAdministartive DraftOther Direct Costs TOTAL COST WITHOUT OPTIONAL TASKS:

Project ManagementProject Kick-OffReview Current Traffic Circulation Master PlanEvaluation of Recommended Transportation ImprovementsDraft and Final Plan DevelopmentTIF Program ApproachTransportation ImprovementsFee Revenue EstimationNexus Study Development Hexagon Tasks (2.2.1-2.2.5)
Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study and TIF Program UpdateDraft and Final Nexus Study Reports TREDLite License
Community Meetings and WorkshopsCity Council Meetings

TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:

SB 743 Policy and TREDLite VMT Tool DevelopmentCoordination MeetingsTechnical AnalysisScreening Maps City of Gilroy
Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Traffic Impact Fee Program Updates Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Project ManagementTraffic Circulation Master Plan Update Support Staff
Work Plan FinalizationProgress Review MeetingsPublic Engagement Plan Sr.

Professional II
Sr.

Professional I Professional II Professonal I Analyst II Analyst I

8.6 p. 138 of&nbsp;947

CITY OF GILROY TCMP AND TIF PROGRAM SCHEDULE
City of Gilroy
Apr 23 May 23 Jun 23 Jul 23 Aug 23 Sep 23 Oct 23 Nov 23 Dec 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Task 1 Project Management

1.1 Project Management

1.2 Project Kick-Off

1.3 Work Plan Finalization

1.4 Progress Review Meetings * * * * * *
Task 2 Traffic Circulation Master Plan Update

2.1 Review Current Traffic Circulation Master Plan

2.2 Travel Demand Modeling

2.3 Future 2050 modeling (Optional)

2.4 Evaluation of recommended improvements

2.5 Recommended Transportation Improvements

2.3.1 Conceptual Design Drawings

2.3.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates

2.3.3 Additional Improvements for TIF Policy

2.6 Draft and Final Plan Development
Task 3 Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study and TIF Program Update

3.1 TIF Program Approach

3.2 Transportation Improvements

3.3 Fee Revenue Estimation

3.4 Nexus Study Development
Task 4 Draft and Final Nexus Study Reports

4.1 Administartive Draft

4.2 Draft

4.3 Final

4.5 VMT Tool
Task 5 Public Engagement Plan

5.1 Public Engagement Plan

5.2 City Council Meetings
Task 6 Draft and Final Nexus Study Reports

6.1 Coordination Meetings * * *

6.2 Technical Analysis

6.3 Screening Maps

6.4 Travel Demand Management and Mitigation

6.5 Documentation

6.6 VMT Analysis Tool (TREDLite)
Project Timeline

8.6 p. 139 of 947
Scope of Services
The Scope of Services provided by Kimley-Horn closely follows the City's Scope of Services. Additions have been made to fully complement our services relevant to the legal requirements (AB1600, AB 602, SB 743).

Task 1: Project Management, Project Kick-off, and Work Plan Finalization Kimley-Horn will meet with City staff to develop a final scope of work that fully encompasses the legal requirements, schedule, and budget. We will include additional tasks identified in the approach above and the scope below. Our scope includes one kick-off meeting and up to six progress review meetings (in-person and virtual).

Deliverables
 Refined scope of work, additional task, and budget
 Detailed schedule identifying key milestones and deliverables  Progress review meetings (including agendas and meeting minutes) Task 2: Traffic Circulation Master Plan Update

2.1. Review Current Traffic Circulation Master Plan
Kimley-Horn is very familiar with the previous master plan and the many projects that have been implemented. The project map and matrix will be updated to reflect the changes and compared to the previous Traffic Circulation Master Plan for compliance. Any recommended changes will be discussed and reviewed with City staff. It is anticipated that some corridors may not require extensive widening, i.e., portions of Santa Teresa Boulevard due to Measure H.

2.2. Travel Demand Modeling (Hexagon)

2.2.1 Update Base Year Model
The current base year of the Gilroy model is 2017. The base year model will be updated and validated to reflect 2019 or 2023 traffic conditions.

2.2.1.1 Update Land Use for the Base Year
The 2017 land use data file will be updated to the new base year. For the TAZs outside the City of Gilroy, the land use data for the base year will be interpolated between 2017 and 2040. For the TAZs within Gilroy, housing and employment-based development projects constructed and occupied between 2017 and the new base year, to be provided by City staff or Kimley-Horn, will be added to the 2017 land use database.

2.2.1.2 Review/Update Roadway Network
The 2017 roadway network in the greater Gilroy area will be reviewed and updated to include roadway improvements constructed between 2017 and the new base year.

2.2.2 Model Validation
The Gilroy model will be validated against base year AM, PM, and Daily traffic counts. The model validation effort does not include changing trip generation, distribution, or mode choice models. Model validation will focus on adjusting the peak-hour trip tables and the traffic assignment process, including updating peak-hour factors, relocating centroid connectors, and updating facility type characteristics, where needed. Hexagon will provide Kimley-Horn with traffic we have collected over the years. Kimley8.6 p. 140 of 947
Horn will review and factor the traffic counts, if necessary, to represent the new base year conditions.

Hexagon will validate the model based on generally accepted model validation criteria:
 The volumes on all roadway links for which counts are available should be within 10 percent of the counts.
 The model-wide coefficient of determination (R2) should be greater than 0.77.  The correlation coefficient between the actual ground counts and the estimated traffic volumes should be greater than 88 percent.
 The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) should not exceed 40 percent.  All screenline volumes should be within the maximum desirable deviation, ranging from 15 to 70 percent, depending on the total screen line volume.

Hexagon will prepare a technical memorandum documenting the input assumptions and results of the model validation. The validation results will be presented in tabular form and in graphics, comparing base year modeled volumes and traffic counts.

2.2.2 Identify road network check against 2004 TMP improvements Kimley-Horn will provide a list of transportation improvements from the 2004 Traffic Circulation Master Plan. In addition, Kimley-Horn will provide a list of regional transportation improvements to include in the 2040 modeled network. Hexagon will review and update the 2040 network and include these local and regional transportation improvements. Hexagon will provide plots of the final 2004 TMP network to Kimley-Horn.

2.2.3 Review/Update 2040 Land Use Assumptions
Hexagon will provide Kimley-Horn an excel file with the base year and 2040 General Plan land use assumptions for the TAZs in Gilroy. In addition, Hexagon will provide GIS-based maps that show 2040 future growth in jobs and households for the TAZs in Gilroy. Kimley Horn will review and update the 2040 land use assumptions if necessary.

2.2.3.1 Develop 2040 Forecasts
Hexagon will run the Gilroy Forecasting model for the year 2040 for the following alternatives:
 Base year network with base year land use data
 Base year network with future year land use data
 Future year network with future year land use data
 Future year land use with up to three network alternatives Kimley-Horn will provide the transportation improvements to be included in the network alternatives.

2.2.3.2 Model Output Data
Hexagon will provide Kimley-Horn with the following model outputs for each of the model runs listed in Task 4:
 AM and PM peak-hour and daily volume plots
 AM and PM peak hour select link plots for transportation improvements for all alternatives
 Summary of base year and 2040 land use data by TAZ in Excel format

8.6 p. 141 of 947
 VMT data in Excel format:
o Home-Based VMT/Resident for Gilroy and the County
o Home-Based Work VMT/Job for Gilroy and the County
o Daily VMT (includes all trip purposes) generated by Gilroy Land Uses

2.2.4. Modeling Coordination Meetings
Hexagon will attend six virtual meetings with the project team. Attendance at virtual public meetings will be charged at our hourly staff rates.

2.3 (Optional). Update Future Land Use Data to 2050
The VTA is in the process of developing 2050 land use and demographic data at the VTA’s TAZ level. If the 2050 data becomes available when we start developing future year forecasts, the 2040 data will be updated to the year 2050. Land use data for 2050 within the City of Gilroy will be updated and provided at the TAZ level by Kimley-Horn or City staff. Land use data for 2050 for the TAZs outside the City of Gilroy will be processed by Hexagon.

2.4. Evaluation of Recommended Transportation Improvements Kimley-Horn will use the output of the modeling analysis carried out during Task 2.2 and 2.3 to evaluate the need for transportation improvements. The new plan will be updated based on the recently adopted 2040 General Plan and Measure H. The improvements should include needed intersections, roadway segments, and bridges to support the 2040 General Plan build-out condition. The improvements should also take into consideration the City’s General Plan Boundary as well as the City’s Urban Growth Boundary restrictions, otherwise known as Measure H, that was approved by the Gilroy voters in November 2016. Improvements in the plan are separated into:
 Roadway Segments
 Intersections
 Bridges
It is recommended to add Class 4 and Class 1 bicycle facilities and key pedestrian facilities (i.e., HighIntensity Activated crosswalk beacons [HAWKs] and Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons [RRFBs]) be added to the project list. (Note that some TIF dollars could be used as a local match for grant funding).

These projects will alternatively be studied for incorporation into a VMT Mitigation Fee program.

2.5. Recommended Transportation Improvements
Projects that are recommended for inclusion in the updated Traffic Circulation Master Plan will include:

2.5.1. Conceptual Design Drawings
The conceptual design drawings will show the ultimate build-out of the improvements, and include cross-sections, lane configurations, dimensions, striping improvements, and any needed right-of-way acquisition. The drawings will be prepared on an aerial photography background. Kimley-Horn will also recommend alternative layouts, i.e., protected intersections or roundabouts as alternative control measures. Caltrans prefers roundabouts where an ICE analysis warrants such a measure (they recently installed the roundabout on SR 152 [Hecker Pass], where a signal would have caused additional safety concerns). Additional pedestrian crossing facilities, i.e., RRFB or HAWK facilities will be reviewed, similarly to those on First Street and Church Street (Highway 152).

8.6 p. 142 of 947

2.5.2. Preliminary Cost Estimates
Each recommended improvement requires a project specific cost estimate. The current plan has a cost estimate template. Kimley-Horn will work with the City to update the cost estimates for proper funding of both project hard costs, soft costs, and any long-term maintenance. The cost estimates should consider City cost contributions and any contributions from other agencies or private developers. Costs will be updated to reflect 2021/2022 construction dollars based on recent bid information for projects within the City.

2.5.3. Additional Improvements for TIF Policy
As the City grows and roads become more congested, diversion is expected to occur onto neighborhood streets and speeding becomes a safety concern. The implementation of traffic calming measures, which meet AB1600 requirements, i.e., Nexus can be demonstrated, will be included in the TCMP. The exercise will require a build and no build volumes plot of the travel demand model on existing neighborhood/collector streets. No traffic calming measures are recommended on arterial roadways or major collectors. Additional improvements to be considered for funding in the updated TIF policy include bicycle, pedestrian, traffic calming, and future model updates.

2.6. Draft and Final Plan Development
The draft and final Traffic Circulation Master Plan documents will identify potential action items and be prioritized for near term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and long-term (10-20 years) improvements and include relevant maps, tables, and exhibits. This task will be completed in close collaboration with the City’s Planning Department and will be based on anticipated land use growth and the pace of City buildout per the 2040 General Plan. This exercise will result in a phased approach to arterials, i.e., build the first two lanes of a future 4-lane facility. The City travel demand model and/or engineering judgements will be used for this task. It should be noted that 0-5 years is a short time frame to plan, design, and construct major roadway facilities. It is anticipated that the short term may be limited to smaller improvements that add capacity to the system. The timing of anticipated grant funding cycles may push out schedules even further.

Deliverables
 Draft and final Traffic Circulation Master Plan documents  Project lists
 Conceptual design drawings
 Preliminary cost estimates
 Street cross-sections
Task 3: Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study and TIF Program Update

3.1. TIF Program Approach
Kimley-Horn will provide recommendations on up to four approaches for the updated TIF Program. The approaches could include fees based on LOS (trips generated) based traffic impacts, VMT-based fees (trips generated and the distance travelled), a combination of LOS-based and VMT-based fees, or a new approach. Kimley-Horn will also provide recommendations for TIF reimbursement policies and procedures including potential developer reimbursements for constructed TIF projects.

8.6 p. 143 of 947
As part of this task, Kimley-Horn will complete a review of current best practices in Transportation Impact Fees throughout the state of California and document them in a white paper as mentioned in our approach.

3.2. Transportation Improvements
Kimley-Horn will identify the improvements needed to serve growth and meet City standards. The costs will come from the estimates prepared for each project in the TCMP. Preliminary Engineering Conceptual Cost estimates of the proposed improvements and proposed criteria for selecting the capital projects used to develop the TIF program will be provided. The criteria will be based on the anticipated pace of land use development and the need for travel imposed by the development.

3.3. Fee Revenue Estimation
Kimley-Horn will provide alternatives and recommendations for calculating traffic impact fees. The alternatives will be based on input received from City staff and stakeholders, if appropriate. This task will also include an estimate of the overall fee revenues based on the list of projects and growth forecasts in the City of Gilroy General Plan 2040. Grant funding for especially regional facilities will be an important component to reduce the fees but should not be overestimated. Kimley-Horn will collaborate with VTA regarding fundings sources for regional roadway infrastructure facilities. The current balance of the TIF program needs to be incorporated into this calculation. Similar to task 2.4, revenue will be estimate for the three major time frames considered under the plan, including near term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and long-term (10-20 years).

3.4. Nexus Study Development
Kimley-Horn will identify the project costs that must be allocated to existing deficiencies (if applicable) and to future growth. The allocated project costs will be used to develop a fee schedule by land use type. Kimley-Horn will provide recommendations on various strategies for assessing the fees between residential, commercial, and industrial development.

Deliverables
 Memorandum summarizing up to four TIF Program Approaches and recommendations on the preferred approach
 Memorandum summarizing the preliminary list of projects under consideration, including maps, conceptual cost estimates, and proposed timing of improvements  Fee calculation alternatives and estimate of fee revenues  Report documenting the methods used in the Nexus study, identifying the Nexus and associated burden, proposed traffic impact fee schedule, and an evaluation of the economic burden on residential, commercial, and industrial development
Task 4: Draft and Final Nexus Study Reports
Based on the findings and deliverables in prior tasks, Kimley-Horn will prepare a memorandum that details the development of the TIF. The memorandum, at a minimum, will include:
 Future facilities eligible for TIF funding per the Nexus study results  A methodology of the fee and fee structure by applicable land use category  Up to two rounds of staff review

8.6 p. 144 of 947
Kimley-Horn will submit a draft Nexus study report that complies with AB 1600 and AB 602 requirements. The report will provide background information, methodologies, findings, recommendations, and appropriate tables and graphics. The report will explain the purpose of the TIF and provide the information and findings used to calculate appropriate impact fees necessary to fund proposed infrastructure improvements required to support future growth as identified in the updated Traffic Circulation Master Plan and City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan. City staff comments on the draft Nexus study report will be incorporated into a final Nexus study report.

In addition, Kimley-Horn will develop an interactive TIF calculation tool. This tool will have the capability to estimate fees for new developments based on trips or VMT depending on the selected methodology.

Deliverables
 Memorandum on the traffic impact fee
 Interactive fee calculation tool
 Final traffic impact fee ordinance
Task 5: Public Engagement Plan
Kimley-Horn will develop a public engagement plan detailing the proposed methods for conducting public outreach to both the City Council and necessary stakeholders. The plan may include one (1) public meetings or workshops, one (1) planning commission meeting, and one (1) City Council meeting.

Deliverables
 Outreach strategy
 PowerPoint presentations
 One public meeting
 One planning commission meeting
 One City Council meeting
Task 6: SB 743 Policy and TREDLite VMT Tool Development Task 6.1 Project Management and Coordination
Kimley-Horn will attend up to four (4) meetings, assumed to be virtual, to review the needs of the City pertaining to VMT analysis, provide progress updates, and review the findings of the project analysis.

The meetings will also ensure the City will be compliant with SB 743 based on the efforts included in the subsequent tasks.

Task 6.2 Technical Analysis
Kimley-Horn will develop average VMT/Capita (Residential) and Work VMT/Employee for the City. In addition, Kimley-Horn will use the Replica platform to compute develop average VMT/Capita (Residential) and Work VMT/Employee for the City. Kimley-Horn will meet with the City to provide results of the two analyses and guidance as to the benefits of proceedings with using each methodology to set thresholds for the City. A decision will be made by the City at this meeting to determine which methodology to use for the remaining efforts included in the subsequent tasks, as well as to choose which boundary to use to set thresholds. Once a methodology has been chosen, Kimley-Horn will also develop estimates for regional VMT totals for use of “net change” analyses.

8.6 p. 145 of 947
Kimley-Horn will use the average VMT/Capita, average VMT/Employee, and regional VMT totals to determine thresholds in cooperation with the City staff. Thresholds can be set at a specific percentage below the averages calculated based on the needs of the City. Typically, thresholds are set at 15-percent below the citywide/countywide/regionwide average as this is consistent with state guidance.

Task 6.3 Screening Maps
Kimley-Horn will develop thematic screening maps showing relative VMT/Capita and VMT/Employee (employee-based land uses only) to facilitate project screening and/or, as appropriate, making project determinations regarding VMT. It is expected that these maps will be used as an informational tool for jurisdictions when discussing VMT with potential project applicants and the public. The maps will identify areas that are below the thresholds established above, those within 15-percent of the threshold (assumed to be able to be feasibly mitigated), and those that are more than 15-percent above the threshold.

Task 6.4 Travel Demand Management and Mitigation
Kimley-Horn will develop a VMT reduction and mitigation strategy that evaluates specific Travel Demand Measures (TDMs) and their relative efficacy with reducing VMT within the City. These TDM measures will be based primarily on CAPCOA’s Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity published in January 2022. This document provides the most recent analysis on VMT reduction methodologies and provides guidance on the amount of VMT reduced by each measure. The strategy developed by Kimley-Horn would outline the analysis required to be completed for projects with VMT impacts and provide the examples obtained from the CAPCOA document.

Task 6.5 Documentation
Kimley-Horn will document the methods and results of the analyses performed in Tasks 2-4 in a brief technical memorandum format with graphics as deemed appropriate by Kimley-Horn. Kimley-Horn will prepare and submit an electronic (PDF) copy of the memorandum the City. Kimley-Horn will address and respond to one set of non-conflicting comments from the City and submit a final copy of the memorandum to the City.

In addition, Kimley-Horn will develop a VMT Analysis Guidelines document to provide guidance on performing VMT analyses for the City. The Guidelines will include the following major topics:
 Background
 Land Use Projects
o Evaluating Land Use Types (including Mixed Use and Redevelopment guidance) o Screening for Non-Significance (criteria and methodologies including maps) o Significance Thresholds and Analysis Methodologies
o Development of Analysis Scope
 Transportation Projects
o Screening for Non-Significance (criteria and methodologies) o Significance Thresholds and Analysis Methodologies
 Recommendations for mitigations/TDMs and their relative efficacy in reducing VMT

8.6 p. 146 of 947
Kimley-Horn will prepare and submit an electronic (PDF) copy of the VMT Analysis Guidelines the City for review. Kimley-Horn will address and respond to one set of non-conflicting comments from the City and submit a final copy of the VMT Analysis Guidelines to the City.

Task 6.6 VMT Analysis Tool (TREDLite)
Kimley-Horn will develop a VMT analysis tool using Kimley-Horn’s online platform, TREDLite. We will develop a specific version of TREDLite for the City to allow the user to perform VMT estimation and mitigation based on the analyses carried out during prior tasks. TREDLite requires land use characteristics of the proposed project, such as the number of residential units or square footage of a project and the project’s physical address. The City’s version of TREDLite will use the associated TAZ or Census Block Group VMT characteristics (depending on the methodology chosen in Task 2) to estimate the VMT of the proposed project and compare it to the thresholds developed during Task 2. It will then determine if the project will result in a significant impact related to VMT and offer some potential mitigation measures that may reduce the project’s VMT impact to less than significant.

The City’s version of TREDLite will also be developed to provide project-level GHG impacts for mobile and non-mobile sources. Mitigations and VMT reduction strategies chosen to reduce a project’s VMT will also be analyzed to show their GHG reductions as well.

Kimley-Horn will test up to two (2) different project types the City for the purpose of demonstrating how TREDLite should be applied. The results will be presented and discussed during a virtual meeting with City staff.

8.6 p. 147 of 947
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF
GILROY FOR 2022-2023 AND APPROPRIATING

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the City completed an update to the 2040 General Plan and the 2040 Travel Demand Model; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Circulation Master Plan identifies all intersections that currently do not or are projected to not meet the City’s adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standard and will determine the level of improvements needed to bring levels of service into compliance; and
WHEREAS, this project includes the preparation of a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Study to develop an updated Traffic Impact Fee Program that complies with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (i.e., the Mitigation Fee Act), also known as AB 1600; and
WHEREAS, Public Works is recommending the City Council award a contract to Kimley-Horn to update the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Traffic Impact Fee Program; and
WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to said budget for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated March 20, 2023 for the Traffic Circulation Master Plan Update, City Project No. 23-RFP-PW-479.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appropriations for Fiscal Year 2022-23 from the Traffic Impact Fee Program Fund be provided in the amount of $396,649.

8.6 p. 148 of 947
Resolution No. 2023-XX
Budget Amendment; Update of Traffic Circulation Master Plan and Transportation Impact Fee Program City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March, 2023 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

8.6 p. 149 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award a Contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW280 for a Total Project Expenditure of $174,565 Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Daryl Jordan, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Julie Oates, Engineer II
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
a) Award a contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. in the amount of $158,695 for the construction of the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-280 and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents; and
b) Approve a contingency amount of $15,870 to be expended only with approved change orders for a maximum project expenditure of $174,565.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project is included in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program. The purpose of the Project is to upgrade existing and install new pedestrian curb ramps to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The Public Works Department advertised the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project (the Project) in the San Jose Mercury News and on the City’s website on February 10, 2023, and received five bids. Staff recommends awarding a contract to the lowest bidder, J.J.R. Construction, Inc., with a maximum project expenditure of $174,565 (which includes a base bid amount of $158,695 and a project contingency of $15,870) to construct the Project. The Project consists of constructing 28 curb ramps to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Project will be funded with Gas Tax.

8.7 p. 150 of 947
Award a Contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-280 for a Total Project Expenditure of $174,565 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 3 March 20, 2023

BACKGROUND
The purpose of the Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project, which is included in the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program, is to upgrade existing and install new pedestrian curb ramps to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

ANALYSIS
Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to provide ADA-compliant curb ramps along pedestrian routes in the public right-of-way whenever streets are altered.

Alterations include reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, and widening.

Based on Title II of the ADA, the City’s upcoming FY23 Annual Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project will result in the need to construct approximately 100 curb ramps.

If all of these curb ramps are constructed as part of the paving project, then some of the funds allocated for the citywide paving program will need to be used to construct curb ramps. This would reduce the amount of funds that could be used for actual paving.

Including some of these curb ramps in the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project will allow more funds from the citywide paving project to go towards paving the City’s streets. Staff identified the deficient curb ramps that are located along the streets scheduled for resurfacing and rehabilitation as part of the FY23 Annual Citywide Pavement Maintenance Project and selected a total of 28 curb ramps for this project.

These locations are clustered together to reduce the mobilization and overall construction costs. Only 28 were selected for this project because, based on the Engineer’s Estimate, it was anticipated that there would only be enough funding to construct 28 curb ramps. Additional deficient curb ramps will be constructed as part of the FY23 Annual Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project and the FY23 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project.

The 28 curb ramps are located along portions of Wren Avenue, Church Street, Princevalle Street, and Old Gilroy Street.

Staff advertised the Project in the San Jose Mercury News and on the City’s website on February 10, 2023, with a bid opening date of March 2, 2023. Staff received 5 bids. A summary of the bid results is shown below:

8.7 p. 151 of 947
Award a Contract to J.J.R. Construction, Inc. for the FY23 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 23-PW-280 for a Total Project Expenditure of $174,565 City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 3 March 20, 2023

RANK COMPANY NAME TOTAL BID
AMOUNT
1 J. J. R. Construction, Inc. $158,695.00
2 ASG Builders $179,190.00
3 FBD Vanguard Construction, Inc. $281,685.00
4 McKim Corporation $287,899.80
5 Clean Cut Landscape, Inc. $457,025.00
The lowest responsive bidder was J.J.R. Construction Inc. with a total bid of $158,695.

The Engineer’s Estimate was $217,370. The lowest bid is 37% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate. Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to J.J.R.

Construction, Inc.

ALTERNATIVES
The alternative to the staff recommendations is to reject all bids. Staff does not recommend this option as this would delay the project.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The Project will be funded with Gas Taxes Fund (Fund 205). The fund has sufficient budgetary appropriations to accommodate this project.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Outreach material will be provided via the City’s social media channels and Email Express to ensure the public is aware of the Project. The contractor will also be notifying nearby residents twice; both two weeks and 48 hours in advance of construction.

NEXT STEPS
Upon the Council’s approval of this contract, the contract will be executed, and Staff will work with the contractor to develop a final construction schedule. Construction is expected to begin in April 2023 and be completed in June 2023.

Attachments:

1. J.J.R. Construction Inc. - Agreement

2. 23-PW-280 Plans

8.7 p. 152 of 947

8.7 p. 153 of 947

8.7 p. 154 of 947

8.7 p. 155 of 947

8.7 p. 156 of 947

8.7 p. 157 of 947

8.7 p. 158 of 947

BENNETT CT

WREN AVE TATUM AVE RONAN AVE
E. LAS ANIMAS AVE LIMAN AVE

LILY AVE WOODWORTH WY WEAVER CT

FREEMAN CT

CONNELL CT

HENNESSEY WY

SEVERANCE ST

BENNETT ST EDEN ST EDEN ST

GARBINI ST CHAPPELL CT

FARRELL AVE
W. LAS ANIMAS AVE

CANTERBURY PL

CHURCH ST RONAN AVE
EL VERANO WY EL INVIERNO DR GASCONY CT ST. CLAR AVE TATUM AVE

YAMANE DR

FOREST ST

MURAOKA DR LA PRIMAVERA WY

TAOS WY

KERN AVE

CHURCH ST BRAZOS ST BOSQUE ST

DESIDERIO WAY

JARDIN WY SANTA FE DR

DEL RIO
CIR

MONTEREY RD

CARLYLE CT
E. LAS ANIMAS AVE RONAN AVE

WREN AVE
E. NINTH ST

CROCKER LN
E. EIGHTH ST OLD GILROY ST

FOREST ST

CHESTNUT ST

EAST ST

MAPLE ST
E. SEVENTH ST

ALEXANDER ST

CHESTNUT ST
E. SIXTH ST

STEPHAN CT

BLOSSOM GLEN CT
W. TENTH ST
W. TENTH ST

HASTINGS PL

SUSSEX PL

KENSINGTON PL

BARRON PL CHURCHILL PL LONDON DR LONDON PL VICTORIA DR

ELEVENTH ST JOHNSON WY

GLENVIEW CT

ROSANNA ST

CHURCH ST

GARDEN CT

FAIRVIEW DR

SOUTHGATE CT ROYAL WY

IMPERIAL DR

ANGELA CT

KINGS PL CATHERINE CT

DEVON PL

THAMES DR

GLENVIEW DR
PRINCEVALLE STVICTORIA DR FY23 ANNUAL CITYWIDE CURB RAMP PROJECT NO. 23-PW-280 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING SIZES, DEPTHS, AND LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK. ANY CHANGES TO THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY USA (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) AT 811 OR 1-800-642-2444, A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS BEFORE BEGINNING ANY EXCAVATIONS.

8.7 p. 159 of&nbsp;947
General Notes 1. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN CONTAINED HEREIN. 2. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND

HOLD THE OWNER AND ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPT FOR LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER. 3. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN PERMITS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THESE PLANS FROM THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES AND TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LIGHTS, SIGNS, BARRICADES, FLAGGERS, OR OTHER DEVICES NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND WORKER SAFETY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LATEST CALTRANS, CA MUTCD, AND CAL-OSHA SPECIFICATIONS. 5. IF ANY CULTURAL FEATURES OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE UNCOVERED DURING GRADING, TRENCHING, OR OTHER EXCAVATION WORK, ALL WORK WITHIN ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET OF THESE MATERIALS SHALL BE STOPPED UNTIL A PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGIST CERTIFIED BY THE REGISTER OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS (RPA) AND/OR SOCIETY FORCALIFORNIA ARCHAEOLOGY (SCA) HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FIND AND APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES ARE DETERMINED AND IMPLEMENTED. 6. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING A COMPLETE AND CURRENT COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY FIELD CHANGES MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY. 8. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MATCHING EXISTING STREETS, SURROUNDING

LANDSCAPE, AND ALL OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH A SMOOTH TRANSITION IN PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, GRADING, ETC., AND TO AVOID ANY ABRUPT OR APPARENTCHANGES IN GRADES OR CROSS SLOPES, LOW SPOTS, AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO IDENTIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF SURFACE UTILITIES. THIS IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE VERIFIED AND COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY AS REQUIRED. CALL U.S.A (UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT) FOR UTILITY LOCATION QUESTIONS AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. PHONE 1-800-642-2444 (OR DIAL 811). 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A TWO (2) WEEK ADVANCE NOTICE AND 48-HOUR ADVANCE NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION WORK. NOTIFICATION TO BE BY LETTER AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 11. TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST "CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES" PUBLISHED BY CALTRANS, AND AS REQUIRED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A PROPOSED HAUL ROUTE AND SHALL NOT BEGIN HAULING UNTIL RECEIVING WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED HAUL ROUTE FROM THE CITY. 13. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE CITY STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CALTRANS STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 14. DUST CONTROL - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTROL DUST TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE. MEETING OR EXCEEDING REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND AS REQUIRED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 15. SAFETY MEASURES - AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING NON-WORKING HOURS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS OF THE JOB SITE, CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND/OR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT STORED IN THE STAGING AREAS, INCLUDING SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY, AND FOR ALL NECESSARY INDEPENDENT ENGINEERING REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONS. THE ENGINEER'S JOB SITE REVIEW IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES. 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING A WPCP FOR APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE WPCP THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT, AND AS REQUIRED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 17. ALL EXISTING CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED SHALL BE REPLACED WITHIN FIVE (5) CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THEIR REMOVAL, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 18. WHERE PRACTICABLE AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG WALKWAYS, INCLUDING PUBLIC SIDEWALKS, AT ALL TIMES. THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR MUST APPROVE SIDEWALK CLOSURES IN ADVANCE. WALKWAYS SHALL BE REOPENED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY. WELL COMPACTED BASE ROCK MAY BE USED AS A TEMPORARY WALKING SURFACE. 19. THE CITY MUST APPROVE CONCRETE FORMS BEFORE THE POURING OF CONCRETE. CONCRETE POURED PRIOR TO APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO REJECTION AND REMOVAL. 20. CURB RAMPS SHALL BE REPLACED BY SAWCUTTING ALONG SCORE MARKS, THEN REMOVING AND REPLACING THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK OVER 4" AGGREGATE BASE AND INSTALLING NO. 4 DOWELS (6" MINIMUM AND 9" MAXIMUM LENGTH) AT 3' ON CENTER, PER THE STANDARD PROVISIONS. THE DOWELS ARE TO BE DRILLED 3" INTO THE EXISTING CURB AND REMAINING SIDEWALK AND EPOXIED INTO PLACE. 21. IF THERE ARE TREE ROOTS PRESENT AT LOCATIONS WHERE CONCRETE REPAIRS ARE SPECIFIED, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CUTTING, PRUNING, OR REMOVING TREE ROOTS WHILE PERFORMING CONCRETE REPAIRS. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY ROOT CONTROL BARRIERS PRIOR TO PLACING NEW CONCRETE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A CERTIFIED ARBORIST, IF NECESSARY, AT NO COST TO THE CITY. BUS STOPS 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE VTA GENERAL BUS STOP HOTLINE AT (408) 321-5800 OR VIA EMAIL AT [email protected] TO COORDINATE IMPACTS TO VTA BUS STOPS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NATURE OF IMPACT AND ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WORKING DAYS. CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE RELOCATING THE BUS STOPS. GARBAGE COLLECTION ROUTES 23. FOR ANY WORK ON OR ADJACENT TO GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION ROUTES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW GARBAGE TRUCKS TO SAFELY PASS THROUGH THE CONTRACTOR'S SITE AT ALL TIMES, UNLESS AN EXCEPTION IS GRANTED BY THE ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY RECOLOGY (408-842-3358) PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION OF WORK WITHIN THE COLLECTION SITE. DRIVEWAY ACCESS 24. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN INGRESS AND EGRESS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE WORK THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION. MAIL SERVICE 25. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT USPS AT (408-842-1354) TO COORDINATE IMPACTS TO MAIL SERVICE. SITE RESTORATION 26. EXISTING LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE AREA OF WORK SHALL BE CAREFULLY REMOVED AND REPLACED IN KIND WITH MINIMAL DAMAGE. LANDSCAPE SOIL SHALL BE REPLACED WHEN DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER WITH BACKFILL MIX PER THE STATED STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 27. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RETURN THE PRIVATE YARDS, SIDEWALKS, PLANTERS, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER FACILITIES, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, DISTURBED BY THE WORK TO THE SAME OR BETTER CONDITION THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK AND SHALL MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO RESTORE EACH PRIVATE YARD DISTURBED BY THE WORK WITHIN ONE WEEK AFTER THE WORK IS COMPLETE ON THE SAME YARD EXCEPT WHERE THE CITY'S INSPECTOR AGREES THAT FOR CONSTRUCTION REASONS, THE ONE WEEK REQUIREMENT MAY BE EXTENDED.DAMAGED IRRIGATION SHALL BE REPAIRED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF DAMAGE. 28. PAVEMENT STRIPING DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND BY THE CONTRACTOR, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.

8.7 p. 160 of&nbsp;947

REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP RETROFIT EXISTING CURB RAMP RETROFIT EXISTING CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP

8.7 p. 161 of&nbsp;947

REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE F CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE B CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE A CURB RAMP REMOVE & REPLACE CALTRANS CASE CM MOD CURB RAMP

8.7 p. 162 of&nbsp;947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the City of Gilroy (Applicant) to
Apply for Grant Funds Under the Safe, Clean Water
and Natural Flood Protection Program
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator Prepared By: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
Council adopt the resolution.

ANALYSIS
Staff has submitted a grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) for their 2023 Standard Grant. The grant application is for funding to augment the federal Congressional Grant award for the Lions Creek trail project, to close the gap and enhance the project through additional funding. Even though the City Administrator and their designees are able to apply and sign for grants, Valley Water requires as part of their application process that a resolution of the applicant’s governing board be adopted to authorize the application.

The resolution uses language from Valley Water‘s grant guidelines.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may reject the resolution. If rejected, the City would not be able to meet all the requirements of the grant application and would not be eligible for a grant award.

8.8 p. 163 of 947
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the City of Gilroy (Applicant) to Apply for Grant Funds Under the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 March 20, 2023

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None. The resolution does not authorize an expenditure or revenue. If awarded, staff will return to Council with appropriate budget actions and financial analysis for its consideration.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was included in the publicly posted agenda for this meeting.

NEXT STEPS
If approved, staff will relay the signed resolution to Valley Water for inclusion in our grant application.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution for the Valley Water District’s 2023 Standard Grant application.

8.8 p. 164 of 947
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY

APPROVING THE CITY OF GILROY (APPLICANT) TO APPLY FOR

GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE SAFE, CLEAN WATER AND NATURAL

FLOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has enacted the FY2023 Safe Clean Water Grant Program, which provides funds for Water Conservation Research Grants, Pollution Prevention Grants, Support Volunteer Cleanup Efforts and Education Grants, Wildlife Habitat Restoration Grants, and Access to Trails and Open Space Grants; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Office of Civic Engagement has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, and establishing necessary procedures; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the Santa Clara Valley Water District require Applicant’s Governing Body to certify by resolution Applicant’s approval to apply for and accept grant program funds; and
WHEREAS, Applicant will enter into a Grant Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby:

1. Approves the submission of an Application for grant funds from the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program;

2. Approves the acceptance of grant funds from the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program, upon approval of grant funding for the Project by appropriate authorities;

3. Certifies that Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project(s);

4. Certifies that Applicant will review and agree to all terms and conditions stated in the Agreement including the Special Provisions, General Provisions, Financial Provisions and Insurance Requirements contained in the Agreement; and

5. Appoints the City Administrator, or their designee, as its authorized agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents and reports including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the performance and completion of the Project.

8.8 p. 165 of 947
Resolution No. 2023-XX
Apply for Grant Funds Under Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

8.8 p. 166 of 947

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow
Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy
[This is a De Novo Hearing at Which the Council Will
Decide if the Environmental Review is Adequate, and
if so, Whether or not to Introduce the Ordinance.]
Meeting Date: March 20, 2023
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Community Development
Submitted By: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Prepared By: Cindy McCormick, Customer Service Manager
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION
[First Action] Staff recommends that the City Council, based on its independent analysis and substantial evidence in the record, find that: the Final IS/MND was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigations agreed to by the applicant; and the Final IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis;
[Second Action] Staff recommends that the City Council decide whether or not to move forward with this ordinance. If it desires to move forward, then the Council should follow option (b) below. If not, then the Council should follow option (a) below:
a) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Zoning Amendment application (Z 18-04) to amend the Gilroy City Code Section 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards).

OR

10.1 p. 167 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 b) Uphold the appeal and motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance; and
Introduce an Ordinance (Z 18-04) amending the Gilroy City Code Section

30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and creating a new Zoning Ordinance Article LV (Electronic Billboards), with modifications:

Include additional content-based restrictive language in the Ordinance and any Electronic Billboard Development Agreement. Other modifications as the Council deems necessary.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On February 2, 2023, the Planning Commission denied a proposal, and the associated CEQA documents, to amend the City Code. The proposed Project would have modified the City Code to allow the construction and operation of up to two (2) electronic billboard(s) within the Gilroy city limits. To allow such signage, the Project requested amendment of Section 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), Section 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts), and Section 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) of the Gilroy Municipal Code and adoption of a new Zoning Code Ordinance (Article LV, Electronic Billboards) as described in the attached January 19, 2023 Planning Commission staff report.

Pursuant to Gilroy City Code Section 30.52.42, the action of the Planning Commission denying the zone change application would be final and conclusive if not appealed.

However, an appeal was filed on February 21, 2023 and therefore the action by the City Council on the subject application shall be final and conclusive, pursuant to Section

30.52.62. BACKGROUND
In 2018, an application was submitted to modify the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow an 80-foot tall, 1,200-square-foot area electronic billboard sign on Automall Parkway. In September 2019, following 18 months of communications between the applicant and City staff / executive management, the application was put on hold until September 14, 2020, when the Gilroy City Council held a public meeting to review the proposal and provide preliminary feedback to City staff on whether to consider the proposal. On March 15, 2021, the Council discussed various aspects of what an ordinance might include, as provided in the attached staff report. In June 2021, the City hired a thirdparty consultant, with experience analyzing environmental impacts associated with electronic billboard projects, to prepare an initial study and associated CEQA documents for the project.

Environmental Assessment: In accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Gilroy Planning Division prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined that although the proposed project could have a significant

10.1 p. 168 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 effect on the environment, there will be less than a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to by, the applicant.

Therefore, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Thresholds of Significance adopted May 3, 2004, by the City of Gilroy. The public review period began on August 5, 2022, and ended on September 5, 2022. The City has prepared a Final MND with response to public comments. The Draft MND and Final MND with a response to public comments are attached to this staff report. If approved, the MND would apply to both the proposed ordinance and the proposed billboard proposed to be located at 6460 Automall Parkway. Approval of the MND does not constitute approval of the proposed billboard.

Planning Commission Review: On January 19, 2023 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the application and accept public testimony on the proposal, including testimony from the applicant. Given the high volume of technical data on the proposal and the multiple comments received from the public, the Commission voted to continue the item to allow more time to review the materials. A summary of the hearing is provided under the analysis section of this staff report.

On February 2, 2023, the Planning Commission continued the discussion of the application and accepted additional public testimony, both for and against the proposal.

A motion to recommend approval of the CEQA document failed (3 to 4). Therefore, the City Attorney advised the Commission that in light of the motion not to adopt the IS/MND, the only course of action open to the Commission was to deny the application.

A motion was then passed to deny the proposed Ordinance (4 to 3). A summary of the hearing is provided under the analysis section of this staff report.

On February 21, 2023, an appeal was jointly filed by the applicant Mike Conrotto and Outfront Media who have an interest in owning and operating an electronic billboard in the City of Gilroy if the proposed Ordinance is approved.

Additional background information is attached (e.g., City Council and Planning Commission staff reports). A copy of all public correspondence received as of March 9, 2023 is attached and summarized under the public outreach section of this staff report.

ANALYSIS
Existing City Code: The Gilroy Sign Ordinance does not currently allow off-site signage (other than real-estate signs) and has general restrictions for freeway-oriented signs and commercial signage (e.g., height and size limits). The Sign Ordinance also prohibits signs that utilize scrolling or moving text or images (i.e., electronic billboards).

Allowance of such signs would require an amendment to City Code Sections 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs), 30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial districts), and 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs).

10.1 p. 169 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 On January 19, 2023, and February 2, 2023, the Planning Commission discussed the application and accepted public testimony on the proposal prior to rendering a decision.

January 19, 2023 Public Hearing: Following staff’s presentation and answers to questions from the Commission, the applicant made a presentation and also answered questions from the Commission.

The applicant, Mike Conrotto, provided background information on the need for the application, including the beneficial ability for Gilroy auto dealers to advertise. A representative from Outfront Media discussed the ability for Amber Alerts and public messaging from the City, the potential revenue for the City, the availability of a sales staff that would be focused on local businesses, the number of advertising spots available, the variable cost of advertising dependent on space availability, and how an advertiser secures space on the sign. Outfront Media also provided answers to several technical questions from the Commission regarding energy usage, illumination visibility, and sign brightness controls.

During the January 19th hearing, three (3) members of the public spoke for and against the project. Public comments are summarized below:
• In addition to direct light impacts, LEDs pollute in the blue part of the spectrum.

Blue light is more scattered than other sources of light. Light pollution continues to increase and has negative impacts on human beings and astronomical pursuits. • Allowing electronic billboards is a big change in Gilroy. • Billboard lights are distracting.
• Billboard will change Gilroy’s rural image.
• Revenue is not worth the impacts, CEQA doesn’t take economics into account. • Signs will be used for illicit advertising.
• National ads will compete with local businesses.
• Ads could bring new customers to Gilroy.

In addition to considering the staff report, project materials, all written and oral public testimony, and all evidence received on the application, the following comments and concerns were discussed by the Planning Commission during the January 19th public hearing prior to continuing the hearing for further analysis:
• The zoning ordinance currently prohibits electronic billboards and there is insufficient reason to change the existing City Code.
• The City may need to pay a billboard owner money to take down the sign. • The City doesn’t know what the potential negative impacts are of a future billboard. • Signs are designed to grab attention and are therefore distracting to drivers. • An applicant could ask to change the ordinance to allow more than two signs. • There is no guarantee that local businesses would pay to advertise on the sign. • There will likely be a high percentage of national (non-local) advertisements. • Small mom-and-pop businesses will likely not be able to afford to advertise.

10.1 p. 170 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 • There has been very little interest expressed from local businesses such as restaurants and the Outlets, or local organizations such as Visit Gilroy, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Downtown Business Association. • The City’s logo on top of the sign might act as an endorsement of whatever is being advertised.
• The electronic billboard is blight and will have negative visual impacts on the City, including Highway 101 which is a gateway to our community • The City received letters from the Lick Observatory, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and others who provided information on potential impacts, including energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, light pollution, and light impacts on wildlife (e.g., birds, fish) and human circadian rhythms, driver safety, and impacts on astronomical pursuits.
• Several members of the community oppose the sign, with more opposed than in favor.
• The economic benefits don’t outweigh the negative social impacts. • The proposal conflicts with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Goal LU 8, and Policies LU 8.2, 8.7, 8.11, and 8.13.

February 2, 2023 Public Hearing: Following staff’s presentation and answers to questions from the Commission, the City’s CEQA consultant provided a presentation and also answered questions of the Commission.

The CEQA consultant explained that they are an independent contractor hired by the City to analyze a series of environmental questions outlined in the CEQA Guidelines (prepared by the State) as well as the thresholds of significance prepared by the City of Gilroy. The consultant then explained how they determine the appropriate CEQA document based on the findings from the analysis (Initial Study). The consultant explained that although an initial scope of work may anticipate the preparation of an MND, the consultant would recommend an Environmental Impact Report in a case where a project could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. However, in the subject case, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared because potential impacts from the project can be reduced to a less than significant level through design features, existing regulations, conditions of approval, and mitigations. Those mitigated impacts include aesthetics (e.g., lighting), air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal resources.

The CEQA consultant also explained that concerns regarding brightness and driver distraction are valid but may also be subjective. CEQA requires an objective analysis that can be accomplished by analyzing the baseline conditions. In this case, there are already existing light sources from surrounding uses and vehicles on the highway. The analysis also considers regulatory thresholds designed to safeguard human health and safety. If the project is compliant with those regulations and standards, then the effects are determined to be less than significant. Future billboards would then be analyzed against established thresholds and the limitations of the Ordinance. Other objective sources used by the consultant in their analysis included for example a study by the US

10.1 p. 171 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 6 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 Department of Transportation on driver visual behaviors in the presence of electronic billboards.

The Consultant also discussed the public disclosure and noticing procedures for the project. The Consultant concluded their presentation by stating that none of the comments received from the public required the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, including comments received before and after the Final MND was prepared.

In answering a question of the Commission on when an EIR would be required, the consultant gave an example, explaining that if the project proposed a minimum dwell time (i.e., read time) of less than four seconds, then an EIR would be necessary.

However, in this case, the proposed Ordinance requires a minimum dwell time of 8 seconds which is more restrictive than the four-second minimum threshold established by the California Business and Professions Code.

In answering a Commissioner’s concern regarding one of the consultants’ sources of information, the consultant explained that there may be differences of opinion, however, the consultant relies on governmental sources that are viewed as more objective than sources that may or may not be biased. Furthermore, some of the information provided by other sources may be based on project areas that are vastly different from the subject property (e.g., in the middle of a dark field).

In answering a Commissioner’s concern that the CEQA document was prepared towards a predetermined outcome, the consultant explained that the document is prepared whether there are impacts or not. If significant impacts are found that cannot be mitigated, an EIR would be prepared. The City Attorney also explained that the CEQA document doesn’t approve a project, rather it is drafted to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the project.

The City Attorney also reiterated that a preliminary assumption that an MND may be the appropriate document does not indicate bias because the City still has the ability to shift from an anticipated MND to an EIR if the analysis indicates there are significant impacts that can’t be mitigated. There are examples from the past where the City has shifted from an MND to an EIR after the analysis for a particular project was completed.

In answering a Commissioner’s question about cultural resources, the consultant indicated that no cultural resources were found on-site and further explained it is unlikely that cultural resources would exist underground due to existing conditions and use of the property. However, mitigations are still included in the document should cultural resources be discovered during construction.

In answering a Commissioner’s question about who paid for the CEQA work, the consultant explained that the applicant reimburses the City for hiring the consultant under direct contract with the City. The consultant works for the City, not the applicant.

Following public comment, the applicant Mr. Conrotto answered questions from the Commission, including this history of how he became involved with the effort and eventually applied for the Ordinance changes. Mr. Conrotto also opined that allowing an

10.1 p. 172 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 7 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 off-site sign on his property adjacent to the freeway allows outside businesses and organizations to advertise on a sign that is not limited to their own property. He also discussed the benefit of advertising public events on the sign and the potential revenue increases for businesses like auto dealers. He opined that this sign could minimize the need for other large signs along the freeway in Gilroy.

Outfront Media then spoke, stating that approximately 64% of billboard advertisements in the Bay Area are local and that increased sales from advertising could range from 5% to 20% for all businesses including local businesses. Furthermore, in addition to the indirect benefits from increased sales tax revenue, the City would receive a portion of the advertising revenues. Outfront Media also indicated they want to accommodate local businesses and are flexible on the advertising rate when space is available.

In response to a Commissioner’s question, Outfront Media stated that there is not a set price for advertisements, as the pricing structure varies based on the time of year, the availability of space, and the person they are working with.

During the February 2nd hearing, 10 members of the public spoke for and against the project as summarized below:
• Local businesses can’t afford to advertise. Mostly out of area or national businesses will benefit.
• CEQA mitigations don’t address city-wide effects.
• Other cities don’t allow these signs or are trying to phase them out. It’s easier not to allow them in the first place.
• CEQA law, in general, was not written to address the types of light pollution impacts resulting from electronic billboards.
• Electronic billboard lighting can be seen from at least 17 miles away. • Billboards detract from the natural landscape and are a blight. • Billboards cause driver distraction.
• Gilroy residents already know about local businesses. • A large majority of commenters oppose billboard applications. • Artificial light disturbs circadian rhythms.
• Billboards do not preserve rural character.
• An electronic billboard will benefit the City and generate traffic for mom-andpop/small businesses. • The GDBA board was polled with 60/40 in favor. Additional businesses have indicated that they are also in favor of the electronic billboard. The GDBA will consider taking a position at a future board meeting.
• An electronic billboard will still bring business to those who can’t afford advertisements.
• An electronic billboard can provide social and emergency messaging. • An electronic billboard will dominate the landscape.
• Visitors will see Gilroy as any other city.

10.1 p. 173 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 8 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 • A billboard will negatively impact Gilroy’s quality of life. • CEQA is not a valid tool to measure social, economic, and legal impacts. • Cities have been subject to lawsuits from the billboard industry (e.g., Outfront). • More billboards will want to come to Gilroy.
• Highway beautification is good for the City of Gilroy. • Electronic billboards consume massive amounts of energy. • As a small business, I’m always looking for new marketing opportunities • New electronic billboards have newer technology.

In addition to considering the staff report, project materials, all written and oral public testimony, and all evidence received on the application, the following comments and concerns were discussed by the Planning Commission during the February 2nd public hearing prior to rendering their decision:
• The CEQA document relies on a source that has been criticized by other entities. • The CEQA document was written in a manner that would support project approval. • Immoral is an outdated term, Ordinance needs to be more specific on content control.
• The billboard could bring in business to City’s smaller businesses. • Gilroy’s high-rise buildings already affect its small-town rural character. • Digital media is a cheaper and more efficient way of doing business. • Most advertisements will not be local.
• Small businesses can’t afford to advertise.
• Emergency messages are already sent out on mobile devices. • The majority of commenters are opposed to billboards. • Light pollution, visual blight, and impact on wildlife are all reasons to deny. • The City banned billboards in the past for a reason.
• The revenue potential does not outweigh the negative impacts. • Many of the concerns brought up can be addressed in the Development Agreement applied to a specific project.
• Electronic billboards have glare and scattered light impacts that aren’t being measured correctly.
• The CEQA document is not comprehensive.
• The Ordinance doesn’t include a requirement for non-illumination. • The height allowance is too tall.
• More than two signs could be proposed.
• The City could be sued as other cities have.
• The Ordinance conflicts with the Gilroy 2040 General Plan Vision Statement, Guiding Principles 2 and 3, LU Goals LU 4 and LU 8, Land Use Policies LU 4.2, LU

5.1, LU 8.2, LU 8.3, LU 8.7 LU 8.11, and Mobility Policy M 5.9. • The Ordinance conflicts with the City’s Interim climate action guidelines regarding lighting and greenhouse gas emissions.

10.1 p. 174 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 9 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 Appeal: On February 21, 2023, an appeal was jointly filed by the applicant Mike Conrotto and Outfront Media who have an interest in owning and operating an electronic billboard in the City of Gilroy if the proposed Ordinance is approved. The appeal letter opines on the following issues brought up during the public hearings:
• Concerns that the Billboard will include obscene content/advertisements:
o Appellant opines that content would be controlled through state and federal law, the Ordinance, the Development Agreement, and the lease agreement with the property owner
o Appellant offered additional content restriction language that could be added to the Ordinance to address this concern
• Concerns that Billboard companies are litigious and that litigations would be consuming of staff time and burdensome on the City’s budget:
o Appellant provided examples of their operations, partnerships, and interactions with other cities
o Appellant opines on certain lawsuits referenced by the public and Planning Commission
• Concerns that lights from billboards cause cancer and cognitive impairment:
o Appellant opines on brightness level visibility
o Appellant opines on the Artificial Light at Night and Cancer: Global Study article that was criticized by a Planning Commissioner
o Appellant opines on concerns about astronomical pursuits at the Lick Observatory
o Appellant opines on concerns about cancer and other diseases o Concerns that billboards help big national companies at the expense of small businesses and local communities:
o Appellant provides statistics on small and local business advertising o Concerns that the Proposed Ordinance does not adequately address prohibitive advertising, requirements for illumination, and height restriction:
o Appellant opines that the Ordinance does address these issues and provides references to support their assertion
o Appellant provides examples from other cities with similar regulations regarding prohibitive content, brightness level, and height limits o Concerns that allowing two billboards would open the floodgates to more billboards:
o Appellant opines on the City’s police power
o Appellant opines on equal protection should another sign company sue the city on the basis of discrimination
o Concerns that allowing billboards in the City would defeat several General Plan goals, including (a) maintaining the City’s culturally rich and small-town quality, (b) revitalization of the City’s Downtown, and (3) protecting productive agricultural lands and sensitive wildlife habitats:
o Appellant opines that the Ordinance addresses these issues and provides references to support their assertion
o Appellant describes the contextual setting of the proposed location for a billboard on the property of the applicant
o Appellant references case law to support their assertion that:

10.1 p. 175 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 10 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 ▪ “perfect conformity with each particular policy is neither achievable nor required”
▪ “to be consistent a project need only be ‘in agreement or harmony’ with the applicable plan”
▪ “city has broad discretion to construe its own policies” ▪ “courts do not afford deference to a city’s unreasonable or unlawful interpretation of its policies”
o Appellant provides compatibility language for guiding principles and several goals of the Gilroy 2040 General Plan
o Concerns that the Billboard project goes against the City’s Climate Action Plan of reducing energy, reducing light emissions, lights-out policy at night, and reducing light and emissions:
o Appellant opines that Outfront Media shares a similar climate pledge and references several steps they have taken to support their assertion o Appellant opines that future billboards would be installed pursuant to current electrical codes, including Title 24 of the State Building Code o Appellant references energy consumption usage of billboards and opines that future billboard(s) would adopt the latest digital technology o Appellant references findings from the IS/MND regarding greenhouse gases and electronic waste
o Appellant opines on the economic impacts of billboards including increased advertising opportunities for small and large businesses, increased sales and tax revenue, and promotion of local events
o Appellant estimates potential revenues to support their assertion As discussed in the fiscal impacts section of this staff report, the City of Gilroy has not verified the sales tax and economic claims made by the appellant. The City of Gilroy would need to hire a third party to evaluate economic impacts.

On March 3, 2023, the appellant submitted the attached proposed changes to Section

30.55.50(g)(8) of the Draft Ordinance. In summary, the appellant’s proposed changes clarify the role of the Community Development Director and remove the Planning Commission from the review process for compliance hearings. As proposed by the appellant, compliance hearings would only be held by the City Council.

On March 9, 2023, the appellant submitted eight (8) letters of support along with a petition signed by 82 business owners and residents in support of the project.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove a proposed ordinance amendment. The City Council may, because of a desire for additional information, or due to the submission of significant new material or evidence, refer the proposed ordinance amendment back to the Planning Commission for further study and report.

Pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.52.60 (City Council findings), the Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing under these circumstances.

Furthermore, failure of the Planning Commission to report within forty (40) days after the

10.1 p. 176 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 11 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 reference, or such longer period as may be designated by the City Council, shall be deemed to be a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed modification. The action by the City Council on the application for a Zoning Ordinance shall be final and conclusive.

Pursuant to City Code section 30.52.6 (Notice of decision), the ordinance or resolution shall recite, among other things, the facts and reasons that, in the opinion of the City Council, make the approval, modification, denial, or denial without prejudice of the Zoning Ordnance amendment necessary to carry out the general purposes of the Zoning Code and the General Plan.

Should the Council decide to approve the appeal, a draft Ordinance has been prepared for consideration. Changes proposed by the appellant have not been included in the draft Ordinance since the information is new and has not been considered by the Planning Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The applicant has paid the standard application review fees, costs associated with the CEQA review including all consultant costs, and costs associated with the City Attorney’s review of the application. Consultant contracts and payment for invoicing are managed by the City. The applicant has no control over the consultant’s budget, scope of work, or which consultant is hired.

The appellant has submitted a letter opining on potential economic benefits, including enhanced commercial sales and increased sales tax and other tax revenues. However, the City of Gilroy has not verified the sales tax and economic claims made by the appellant. The City of Gilroy would need to hire a third party to evaluate economic impacts.

Questions regarding potential revenues to the City were brought up during the Planning Commission hearing on the project. As indicated in that meeting, potential revenues associated with a future application from Outfront Media would only be considered at a future meeting if the proposed ordinance was approved. However, staff understands that potential revenue is still a topic of interest. While a development agreement is not being considered at this time, staff is including one potential revenue-sharing provision that could be negotiated with an electronic billboard operator. For example, a future development agreement could include a revenue sharing provision for five (5) percent of Net Receipts for a period of 20 years, where net receipts include revenue received from Billboard advertisements, minus operator commissions not to exceed sixteen and twothirds percent of the gross sales amount (16.66 %), calculated on a semi-annual basis.

As mentioned, potential revenues associated with a future electronic billboard application would only be considered at a future meeting if the proposed ordinance was

10.1 p. 177 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 12 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 approved. The item for Council consideration currently is the environmental document and the proposed ordinance.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Public Notice: A notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was publicized in the August 5, 2022 Gilroy Dispatch (no less than 30 days prior to a decision on the MND). Individual property owners within 500 feet of the subject property where an electronic billboard is proposed were mailed copies of the notice of intent on August 1, 2022.

A community meeting to discuss the project was held on October 25, 2022. Individual property owners within 1,600 feet of the subject property where an electronic billboard is proposed were mailed copies of the notice for the community meeting on October 13, 2022. The community meeting was advertised in the October 21, 2022 Gilroy Dispatch.

A notice of the January 19, 2023 Planning Commission meeting was publicized in the January 6, 2023 Gilroy Dispatch (no less than 10 days prior to the meeting). Individual property owners within 500 feet of the subject property where the electronic billboard is proposed were mailed copies of the notice on January 5, 2023. No additional noticing was required for the February 2nd meeting since this meeting was continued to a date certain; however, staff sent an email regarding the continuance to all individuals and organizations who had previously commented on this agenda item.

Following receipt of the appeal letter, staff sent an email with a link to the appeal letter to all individuals and organizations who had sent comment letters to staff on this item.

The March 20, 2023 City Council public hearing was publicized in the March 10, 2023 Gilroy Dispatch. Staff also sent an email regarding the appeal to all individuals and organizations who had sent comment letters to staff on this agenda item.

The City Council and Planning Commission public hearing packets are also available through the City’s webpage. All comments received after the packet was published were posted to the public comment portal by the City Clerk.

Public Comments: As of March 9, 2023, the City received a large volume of comments on the proposed billboard ordinance, including several individuals opposing the project as well as a petition with several businesses supporting the project as described below.

Approximately 10 individuals attended the virtual community meeting on October 25, 2022. Dr. Paul Lynam referred to his previous correspondence regarding dark sky recommendations. Other commenters noted that billboards change community character and therefore many communities ban billboards, that the City could be sued, that once signs go up they are legally difficult to remove, and that signs are distracting to drivers.

10.1 p. 178 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 13 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 As of March 9, 2023, the City received written comments via email from 60 individuals/organizations (not inclusive of commenters who submitted multiple emails/letters or those who commented during the public hearing or community workshop). Of the 60, five (5) individuals support the draft Ordinance, citing the ability to advertise local, regional, and national businesses, as well as local events and emergency communications. The remaining 55 individuals/organizations oppose the draft Ordinance, citing concerns related to aesthetics, astronomical pursuits, the billboard industry in general, the potential for litigation, driver safety, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, light pollution, and light impacts on wildlife (e.g., birds) and human circadian rhythms. CEQA-related comments were addressed in the attached Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). CEQArelated comments received after the release of the Draft MND were subsequently addressed in the attached Final MND. The Final MND includes a response to CEQArelated comment letters from John Bauters (8-24-22), Shani Kleinhaus/Audubon Society (9-6-22), and Dr. Paul D. Lynam/Lick Observatory (9-5-22). As a result of these letters, the Final MND amended Section 2.4, Biological Resources (page 41), mitigation measure BIO-7 (page 45), and Section 2.17, Transportation (page 98). These minor amendments and clarifications do not change the significance of any of the environmental conclusions within the Draft IS/MND, nor do they require changes to the draft Ordinance. CEQA-related comments received after the publication of the Final IS/MND were also reviewed by the CEQA consultant who noted that the Final IS/MND adequately addressed those subsequent comments.

In addition, Outfront Media submitted the attached response to comments as they relate to the MND (dated September 29, 2022) and general concerns regarding light impacts and driver safety impacts (March 21, 2021). On December 8, 2022, applicant Mike Conrotto submitted a list of benefits for the proposed billboard.

On March 9, 2023 (following the Commission’s decision on the project and after the appeal was received), the appellant submitted a petition signed by 82 business owners and residents in support of the electronic billboard. The appellant also submitted letters from eight (8) Gilroy businesses in support of the project.

A copy of the petition and supporting letters as well as all public comments received as of March 9, 2023, when the staff report was completed is attached.

NEXT STEPS
If the appeal is denied by the Council and the Planning Commission’s denial (with prejudice) is upheld, the applicant cannot reapply for the proposed Ordinance amendment for one year from the Planning Commission’s February 2, 2023 decision (February 2, 2024). However, the City Council could waive the one (1) year waiting period if the Council determines that significant new material or facts are present which justify reconsideration of a zone change through refiling of the application.

If the appeal is approved by the Council and the Planning Commission’s denial is overruled, the Council should make two motions; 1) to adopt the MND and 2) to

10.1 p. 179 of 947
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny an Application Proposing Changes to City Code to Allow Up to Two Electronic Billboards in the City of Gilroy City of Gilroy City Council Page 14 of 14 March 20, 2023 7 4 introduce the zoning ordinance amendments. The proposed Ordinance would come back to the City Council for a second reading, approximately two to four weeks following the first reading. If the Ordinance is subsequently approved by the City Council, the Ordinance would take effect 30 days following the second reading of the Ordinance.

The applicant, or any other applicant, could then submit a proposal for an electronic billboard in conformance with the adopted Ordinance.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution adopting the Final IS/MND

2. Draft Ordinance

3. 23-2-21 Appeal letter from Mike Conrotto

4. 23-2-21 Appeal letter from Outfront Media

5. 23-2-22 Appellant letter regarding potential benefits

6. 23-3-3 Appellant recommended amendments to Draft Ordinance

7. 23-3-9 Petition and letters of support for the project, as submitted by appellant

8. 23-2-2 Planning Commission Resolution of Denial

9. 23-1-19 Planning Commission Staff Report

10.23-2-2 Planning Commission Staff Report

11.22-11-16 Final IS/MND with response to public comments

12.22-8-4 Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)

13.22-12-8 Applicant’s comments regarding project benefits

14.22-9-29 Applicant’s response to CEQA comments

15.21-3-21 Applicant comments regarding Brightness and Road Safety

16.21-3-15 Council Staff Report

17.Public Comments through 3-9-23

18.Organizational comments from Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Lick Observatory, Green Foothills, through 3-9-23

19.Link to public comments received after 3-9-23

10.1 p. 180 of 947
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GILROY ADOPTING THE FINAL INITIAL STUDY /

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (FINAL IS/MND)

FOR THE ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD ORDINANCE

PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Code Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XXXVII (Sign Regulations) currently prohibits electronic billboards within the city; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2018, an application was submitted by Mike Conrotto/Emsee Properties proposing an amendment to City Code Sections 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs) and 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) and other entitlements as needed to allow such signage (“Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Draft and Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is to identify any potential environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project in the City of Gilroy, California; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Gilroy has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the Lead Agency in the preparation of the Draft and Final IS/MND and any additional environmental documentation required for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the intended use of the Final IS/MND document is to determine the level of environmental analysis required to adequately analyze the project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and to provide the basis for input from public agencies, organizations, and interested members of the public; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Gilroy Planning Division prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Therefore, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Thresholds of Significance adopted May 3, 2004, by the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was advertised in The Gilroy Dispatch on Friday, August 5, 2022 (no less than 30 days prior to a decision on the IS/MND), and WHEREAS individual property owners within 500 feet of the subject property where the electronic billboard is proposed were mailed copies of the Notice of Intent on August 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft IS/MND began on August 5, 2022, and ended on September 5, 2022; and

10.1 p. 181 of 947
Resolution No. 2023-XX
Adopting Final IS/MND for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy received several comments on the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project, including comments regarding potentially significant environmental impacts and other concerns that will be considered by the City of Gilroy but are not considered significant environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, although not required by CEQA, the City of Gilroy prepared responses to significant environmental comments received on the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND); and WHEREAS, revisions were made to the Draft IS/MND for the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project in response to public comments regarding potentially significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, these revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), Draft IS/MND appendices, Responses to Comments, Errata, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), comprise the “Final IS/MND” for use by the City of Gilroy in its review and consideration of the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project; and WHEREAS; the Final IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis and the City has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will be less than a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent (e.g., mitigations from the MND) that reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant impact; and
WHEREAS, approval of the Final IS/MND does not constitute approval of the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project (Z 18-04, SP 21-08); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project (Z 18-04, SP 21-08) at a special meeting on January 19, 2023, and at a regular meeting on February 2, 2023, and approved a motion to not recommend adoption of the Final IS/MND; and
WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation was filed on February 21, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the City Council received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project (Z 18-04); and

10.1 p. 182 of 947
Resolution No. 2023-XX
Adopting Final IS/MND for Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

WHEREAS, based on the City Council‘s independent analysis and substantial evidence in the record, the City Council found that: the Final IS/MND was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to mitigations agreed to by the applicant; and the Final IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby adopts the Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final IS/MND) for the Electronic Billboard Ordinance Project.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of March 2023 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk

10.1 p. 183 of 947
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY

APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GILROY CITY CODE, CHAPTER
30 (ZONING) SECTION 30.37.30 (PROHIBITED SIGNS), SECTION

30.37.50 (COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS), AND
SECTION 30.37.51 (FREEWAY-ORIENTED SIGNS) AND CREATING

ARTICLE LV (ELECTRONIC BILLBOARDS)
WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Code Chapter 30 (Zoning), Article XXXVII (Sign Regulations) currently prohibits electronic billboards within the city; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2018, an application was submitted by Mike Conrotto/Emsee Properties proposing an amendment to City Code Sections 30.37.30 (Prohibited Signs) and 30.37.51 (Freeway Oriented Signs) (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the project would also require an amendment to City Code Section

30.37.50 (Commercial and Industrial Districts) and the creation of new City Code requirements for the establishment and operation of an electronic billboard (Article LV, Electronic Billboards); and
WHEREAS, On September 14, 2020, the Gilroy City Council held a public meeting to review the proposal and provide preliminary feedback to City staff in the evaluation of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, On March 15, 2021, the Gilroy City Council held a public meeting to review draft policy recommendations to regulate electronic billboards in the City of Gilroy and provide preliminary feedback to City staff in the continued evaluation of the proposal; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Gilroy Planning Division prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. Therefore, the City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the Thresholds of Significance adopted May 3, 2004, by the City of Gilroy; and WHEREAS, the public review period for the Draft MND began on August 5, 2022, and ended on September 5, 2022, and WHEREAS the City prepared a Final MND with response to public comments; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the City of Gilroy held an informational community meeting to provide an overview of the project and provide the public with an opportunity to ask questions on the project; and

10.1 p. 184 of 947
Ordinance No. 2023-XX
Electronic Billboards Ordinance
City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

WHEREAS, on January 19, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Zoning Amendment (Z 18-04), and continued the public hearing to February 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2023 the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Zoning Amendment (Z 18-04) and determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2023 the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony related to the proposed Zoning Amendment (Z 18-04) and determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is necessary to carry out the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the City Clerk’s office of the City of Gilroy.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning, Section 30.37.30 is hereby modified as follows:

Section 30.37.30 Regulations in all districts.
(a) Prohibited Signs. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the following signs shall be prohibited throughout the City of Gilroy:
(1) Signs on or above the roof or projecting above the roof eave (other than a gable or mansard type roof) or canopy of a structure.
(2) Signs projecting more than thirty-six (36) inches above the lowest edge of the eave of a gable or mansard type roof. A sign may be permitted on a vertical surface specifically designed to accommodate a sign, which is lower than the crest of the roof, if such sign area is approved by the planning director. (3) Flags, pennants, balloons, streamers, and objects designed to move with the wind, except for flags of the United States of America and the State of California on a flagpole for which a building permit has been issued and as exempted in

10.1 p. 185 of 947
Ordinance No. 2023-XX
Electronic Billboards Ordinance
City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

sections 30.37.20(d)(20) (feather banner exemption) and 30.37.20(d)(19) (new vehicle sales exemption).
(4) Lighted signs that flash on and off (except time and weather signs that change less than six (6) times per minute) and signs that utilize scrolling or moving text or images, except as regulated under Article LV Electronic Billboards. (5) Any sign feature which moves or is designed to move, except for signs which rotate at less than six (6) revolutions per minute.
(6) Lighted signs whose surface brightness is a detriment to surrounding property, prevents the peaceful enjoyment of life or presents a conflict with safe traffic movement; or advertising displays which emit audible sound, odor, or visible matter, except as regulated under Article LV Electronic Billboards. (7) Any sign which because of flashing lights, brilliant lighting, motion or apparent motion, shape, design, color or reflected light is a detriment to surrounding property or prevents the peaceful enjoyment of residential uses or presents a conflict with the traffic regulations or traffic safety, except as regulated under Article LV Electronic Billboards..
(8) Any sign which has a design or lighting such that it might be mistaken for a traffic light or signal.
(9) Signs located in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision or the view of any authorized traffic sign, signal or device.
(10) Any sign which because of its location would prevent free and safe ingress to or egress from any door, window, fire escape, driveway, sidewalk, parking space or bike path, or would obstruct an outward view from any living area. (11) Any signs attached to a standpipe or fire escape.
(12) Signs projecting into a public street, alley or identifiable pedestrian way more than twelve (12) inches excluding signs allowed on awnings. (13) Signs projecting into a public right-of-way having less than eight (8) feet clearance between the lowest edge of the sign and the sidewalk grade. (14) Signs projecting into a public street area that have less than fifteen (15) feet clearance between the lowest edge of the sign and the adjacent driveway or street grade.
(15) New signs painted or existing signs repainted directly on any building or structure unless conforming to the requirements of this chapter. (16) Any off-site advertising sign, including billboards, in any district except as exempted in section 30.37.90 and permitted in Article LV Electronic Billboards.

10.1 p. 186 of 947
Ordinance No. 2023-XX
Electronic Billboards Ordinance
City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

SECTION II
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning, Section 30.37.50 is hereby modified as follows:

30.37.50 Signs in commercial and industrial districts.

Only signs meeting the following standards will be permitted in commercial or industrial districts, provided that all other applicable provisions of this chapter are also complied with:
(a) Signs shall be located and erected only upon the premises occupied by the person or business to be identified or advertised by such signs, except as permitted in Article LV Electronic Billboards. The location of all signs shall be in compliance with the building, electrical and fire prevention codes of the city as amended. (b) The maximum permissible total sign area for all signs including freestanding signs (but excluding electronic billboards, master shopping center signs, and freeway signs), for all commercial or industrial districts shall not exceed the maximum total sign area for each business, according to the following table:

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2
Maximum total sign
area permitted (in
square feet) for each
lineal foot of building
frontage
Maximum total sign area permitted (in
square feet) regardless of building
frontage (except as provided in
subsection (f) of this section)
PO and CCA districts N/A 35
C1, TD and CD
districts 1 1/2 75
DHD and DED
districts 2 75
C3, HC, CM and GD
districts 1 1/2 150
M1 and M2 districts 1 350
The permitted sign area may be mounted on a freestanding sign and on any side of a building, except no sign shall be mounted on the side of a building abutting and facing a freeway. The lineal footage of a building frontage shall be that distance of building facing a public street. The maximum sign area for buildings which front on more than one (1) street shall be calculated by using the longest of any one (1) such frontage. In a commercial or industrial complex where there are three (3) or more tenants, the maximum sign for each tenant may be calculated by using the greater of (1) the building

10.1 p. 187 of 947
Ordinance No. 2023-XX
Electronic Billboards Ordinance
City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023

elevation fronting a street or (2) the building elevation fronting directly on the parking lot for the commercial or industrial complex.
(c) The maximum number of freestanding signs shall be one (1) per business, building, or parcel, whichever is most restrictive. An individual business shall not be permitted to have a freestanding sign where there is a master shopping center or group sign. The area of the freestanding sign shall be included in the maximum area allowed. The maximum height for any freestanding sign shall be seven (7) feet, except for freewayoriented signs, master shopping center signs, and specific subdivision and real estate signs regulated under this chapter. Electronic billboards are not considered a freestanding sign for the purposes of this Article.

SECTION III
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning, Section 30.37.51 is hereby modified as follows:

30.37.51 Freeway-oriented signs.

In certain instances, one (1) on-site freeway-oriented sign may be permitted in addition to one (1) monument sign. Electronic billboards are not considered a freestanding sign for the purposes of this Article. However, no freeway-oriented sign shall be allowed on property that already contains an electronic billboard. The freewayoriented sign shall not exceed sixty (60) feet in height and shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet of sign area. The parcel on which the freeway sign is to be located must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) The parcel exceeds twenty thousand (20,000) square feet in land area. (b) The parcel is within six hundred sixty (660) feet of an off-ramp from U.S. 101. (c) The parcel is occupied by a use which is a permitted use in an HC highway commercial district.

Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of sign area for the freeway sign is permitted where additional freestanding signage is limited to one (1) monument sign not exceeding thirty-six (36) square feet in area.

SECTION IV
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning, Article LV Electronic Billboards is hereby proposed as follows:

Article LV (Electronic Billboards)
Section 30.55.10 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Article is to provide adequate signage for commercial businesses that have a regional customer base, establish procedures for the review and approval of electronic billboard(s), and specify development criteria to ensure that the permitting of electronic billboard(s) does not create visual clutter

10.1 p. 188 of 947
Ordinance No. 2023-XX
Electronic Billboards Ordinance
City Council Regular Meeting | March 20, 2023