Agenda packet — Gilroy City Council, November 18, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA
95020
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM
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 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS ARE TAKEN BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TAKES ACTION. Please keep your comments to 3 minutes. Time restrictions may vary based on the Mayor's discretion.

Send written comments on any agenda item to [email protected] or City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by 1 p.m. on the meeting day will be distributed to the City Council before the meeting. Comments are also available 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 dispute any planning or land use decision from this meeting in court, you may only raise issues you or someone else presented at this meeting's public hearing or in written letters to the City Council before the hearing.

Be aware that the time to seek a judicial review of any final decision made at this meeting is defined by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

During this meeting, a Closed Session may be called under Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2). This will happen if, in the City's legislative body's opinion (based on current facts, circumstances, and legal advice), there's a significant risk of a lawsuit against the City.

Additional materials submitted after agenda distribution are available on www.cityofgilroy.org as soon as possible.

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.

November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

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 translation assistance, contact the City Clerk 72 hours before the meeting at 408-846-0204 or [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 meeting is outlined as follows:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Invocation

1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda

1.5. Roll Call

1.6. Orders of the Day

1.7. Employee Introductions

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)

4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

4.1. Annual Presentation by the Personnel Commission

4.2. Annual Presentation by the Planning Commission
November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

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

AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE

CITY COUNCIL
This part of the meeting allows public address on non-agenda topics within the Council's jurisdiction. To speak, complete a Speaker's Card from the entrances and give it to the City Clerk. Speaking time ranges from 1-3 minutes based on the Mayor's discretion. Extended discussions or actions on non-agenda items are restricted by law. For Council action, the topic may be listed on a future agenda.

Email written comments on non-agenda topics
to [email protected] or mail them to City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020, by 1:00 p.m. on the meeting day. These comments, available at City Hall, will be shared with the Council and included in the meeting record. Late submissions will be shared as soon as possible. A 10-page limit applies to hard-copy materials, but electronic submissions are unlimited.

5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Council Member Armendariz – Downtown Committee, Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority (alternate), Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Implementation Board, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board (alternate)
Council Member Marques – ABAG, Downtown Committee, 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, VTA Policy Advisory Committee
Council Member Cline – Gilroy Economic Development Partnership (alternate), Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors (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, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee
Council Member Tovar – Downtown Committee, 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 Mayor Blankley – ABAG (alternate), CalTrain Policy Group, Downtown Committee, Gilroy Economic Development Partnership, Gilroy Sister Cities Association (alternate), Gilroy Youth Task Force, Santa Clara Valley Water Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA, South County Youth Task Force Policy Team, VTA Board of Directors, VTA Mobility Partnership Committee
November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items under the Consent Calendar are deemed routine and approved with one motion. If a Council member or a member of the public wishes for a separate discussion on an item, it must be requested for removal before the Council's approval vote. If removed, the item will be discussed in its original order.

6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the November 4, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting

6.2. Acceptance of Cash and Investment Report as of September 30, 2024

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

7.1. Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for Construction

1. Staff Report: Daniel Padilla, City Engineer

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Award a contract to Villalobos and Associates in the amount of $147,755, approve a project contingency of $38,183.33, approve a total project expenditure of $179,943.33 for the construction of the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project (No.25-PW-291), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

7.2. Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by $169,515

1. Staff Report: Daniel Padilla, City Engineer

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

1. Award a contract to Villalobos and Associates in the amount of $356,100, approve a project contingency of $53,415, approve a total project expenditure of $409,515 for the construction of the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project (No.25-PW-290), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

2. Adopt a resolution amending the budget.

7.3. Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services in the amount of $749,899

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

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Council:

1. Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design in the amount of $749,899; and,

2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement and all other related documents.

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS

10.1. Receive Preliminary Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) Year-End Financial Report and Adopt a Resolution Amending Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Budget to Appropriate Mid-cycle Budgetary Adjustments

1. Staff Report: Harjot Sangha, Finance Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

1. Receive preliminary Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) year-end financial report.

2. Adopt a resolution amending the FY25 budget to appropriate mid-cycle budget adjustments.

3. Approve the Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Section 115 Trust contributions pursuant to the Council adopted policies.

10.2. Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Authorizing the City Administrator to Enter into an Agreement with Applicant Gilroy Logistics LLC for 951-981 Renz Lane Agricultural Mitigation

1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director

2. Public Comment

3. Possible Action:

Adopt a Resolution to approve an Agreement with Gilroy Logistics LLC to utilize 12.8 acres of the conservation easement that the City caused to be purchased on the Van Dyke property to satisfy compliance with the City of Gilroy’s Agricultural Mitigation Policy and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement.

11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS

12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

12.1. Santa Teresa Fire Station Update

13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS

14. CLOSED SESSION

15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
November 18, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 6 of 6 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each Council Member if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and GCC Section 17A.13(b); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required under GCC Section 17A.11(5).

16. ADJOURNMENT

FUTURE MEETING DATES
December 2024
9 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
January 2025
6 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
27 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
February 2025
3 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
24 Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m
Meetings are live streamed on the City of Gilroy’s website at gilroy.city/meetings and on YouTube at https://bit.ly/45jor03.

Access the 2024 City Council Meeting Calendar at https://bit.ly/3LLzY1n.

City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
November 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 5

CITY COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM
:

1. OPENING

1.1. Call to Order

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was provided by Council Member Zach Hilton.

1.3. Invocation
Pastor Malcolm McPhail led the invocation.

1.4. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
Management Assistant, Kylie Katsuyoshi, advised the agenda was posted on Friday, November 1, 2024 at 10:17 A.M.

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

1.6. Orders of the Day
None

1.7. Employee Introductions
Utilities Director, Heath McMahon introduced Christian Ochoa, Engineer 1.

2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS - Proclamations and Awards

3. COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE (Informational Only)

4. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

4.1. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS

NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

Eli Aizerman spoke about illegal dumping on the property at 315 Las Animas Ave., and how the City continues to obstruct their project.

Ron Kirkish spoke about the election literature sent out by a committee Ten South supported and that the literature is full of lies and false innuendos.

6.1 p. 7 of 168
City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
November 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 5
There being no further speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

5. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco
Noted he recently attended a meeting of the Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority and encouraged the public to use the library programs.

Council Member Armendariz
No report.

Council Member Marques
Advised she attended the Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors meeting, which was also attended by two representatives of the Gilroy Garlic Festival. They asked if the Garlic Festival could be held at Gilroy Gardens, additional information to come over the next several months. The annual Holiday Lights will be starting on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Council Member Hilton
Noted Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority JPA Board approved a $100,000 allocation to create the Expanded Education Fund, that seeks to enhance the offering of local nonprofits in youth engagement and education.

Council Member Cline
No report.

Council Member Tovar
No report.

Mayor Blankley
Noted the City is processing Ten South’s application that it has received.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR

6.1. Approval of the Action Minutes of the October 21, 2024 City Council Regular Meeting.

6.2. Adoption of a Resolution of the City of Gilroy to approve the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and the Gilroy Annex.

6.3. Approval of a second Amendment to the Agreement with Circlepoint, Inc. for the Gilroy Data Center Project Environmental Impact Report in the amount of $36,757.25 for a total project cost of $244,009.30.

6.4. Claim of Jesus Diaz Chavez (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of the claim).

6.5. Claim of Roberto Patricio Justor (The City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall

6.1 p. 8 of 168
City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
November 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 5
constitute denial of the claim).

Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

Council Member Marques requested Agenda Item 6.3 be pulled for discussion.

MOTION: Approve Agenda Item Nos. 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, and 6.5.

RESULTS: PASS: 7-0 ROLL CALL VOTE
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,

TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Enactment No.: Resolution No. 2024-53
MOTION: Approve Agenda Item Nos. 6.3
RESULTS: PASS: 7-0 ROLL CALL VOTE
MOVER: Carol Marques, Council Member
SECONDER: Tom Cline, Council Member
AYES: BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,

TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

7. BIDS AND PROPOSALS

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS

9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

9.1. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the FY23 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 23-PW-278 and Approval of a Final Contract with Teichert Construction in the Amount of $5,977,011.86
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

MOTION: Approve a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the FY23 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 23-PW-278. And approve a final contract in the amount of $5,977,011.86 with Teichert Construction for the FY23 Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 23- PW-278.

6.1 p. 9 of 168
City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
November 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 5
RESULTS: PASS: 7-0 ROLL CALL VOTE
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Council Member
AYES: BRACCO, ARMENDARIZ, MARQUES, HILTON, CLINE,

TOVAR, BLANKLEY
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

9.2. Zoning Ordinance Update Progress Report
Mayor Blankley opened Public Comment.

There being no speakers, Mayor Blankley closed Public Comment.

10. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
None

11. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
None

12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS

12.1. VTA Grant Award

12.2. Santa Teresa Fire Station Update
City Administrator, Jimmy Forbis advised the City received news from Valley Transportation Authority that the U.S. Department of Transportation gave a grant of $900,000 for the Gilroy Station Area Plan, and VTA will match with $225,000.

The Fire Station property is going through the appraisal process, and it should be completed by the beginning of December. Several city engineering staff will be traveling to Morgan Hill to visit their new fire station.

Lastly, praise was given to the Recreation Division for hosting the VSP Vision Eyes event where 60 seniors were able to get their eyes checked and get fitted with glasses, and on December 7th the annual Santa breakfast will be held with sitting times of 8:30 A.M. and 10:30 A.M.

13. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
No report.

14. CLOSED SESSION

15. ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION

16. ADJOURNMENT FUTURE MEETING DATES
The meeting was adjourned at 6:29 P.M.

6.1 p. 10 of 168
City Council Regular Meeting
Agenda
November 4, 2024 | 6:00 PM Page 5 of 5
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/Beth Minor
Interim City Clerk

6.1 p. 11 of 168

Page 1 of 2 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Acceptance of Cash and Investment Report as of September 30, 2024
Meeting Date: November 18, 2024
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 cash and investment report as of September 30, 2024.

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
As of September 30, 2024, the City’s cash and investments totaled $181.8 million, of which primary investments include: $43.4 million in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), $106.8 million in US Treasury securities, and $26.6 million in California CLASS PRIME Fund. The fiscal year interest earnings are $2.2 million, which includes accrued interest as well as amortization of the discount on the US Treasury securities. The effective rate of return is 4.6%.

In addition, approximately $15.5 million is held by Fiscal Agents in the Trustee capacity for various bond issues such as bond proceeds, debt service reserves, bond payments, and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) and pension. The majority of this balance ($10.7 million) consists of the City of Gilroy’s share of the Acquisition and Construction

6.2 p. 12 of 168
Acceptance of Cash and Investment Report as of September 30, 2024 City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 2 November 18, 2024 1 7 Funds for the SCRWA Plant Expansion Project, and the remaining primarily consists of the Section 115 Trusts for OPEB and pension ($4.5 million).

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 September 30, 2024

6.2 p. 13 of 168
City of Gilroy
Investment Report
september 2024

6.2 p. 14 of 168

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PORTFOLIO SUMMARY REPORT.......................................................................................... 1 - 3

2. INVESTMENTS BY ISSUER REPORT................................................................................... 4 - 5 3 INVESTMENT ACTIVITY…………………………………………………………………………….. 6 - 7

4. QUARTERLY MOVEMENT OVER THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS........................................ 8

5. MOVEMENT OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS - GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION.................... 9

6. INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO - GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION................................................ 10 - 11

7. INTEREST EARNINGS: FISCAL YEARS 2015 - 2025............................................................ 12

8. MONIES HELD BY FISCAL AGENTS REPORT………….……............................................... 13

6.2 p. 15 of 168
City of Gilroy
Portfolio Management
September 30, 2024
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)846-0294
Portfolio Summary
% of
Portfolio
Book
Value Investments
Market
Value
Par
Value
Days to
Term Maturity
YTM
360 Equiv.

YTM
365 Equiv.
43,386,850.32 43,386,850.32 43,386,850.32 24.54 1 1 4.428 4.490 85,568,500.00 83,225,765.27 83,773,381.14 47.38 554 280 4.665 4.730 23,248,000.00 22,724,400.08 23,040,184.89 13.03 364 70 4.997 5.066 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 15.06 1 1 5.337 5.411 176,827,336.25 100.00%
LAIF
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Bill -Amortizing
Other Investments
Investments
178,830,270.22 175,963,935.57 310 142 4.751 4.817
Cash
(not included in yield calculations)
Passbook/Checking 5,015,718.10 5,015,718.10 5,015,718.10 1 1 0.000 0.000 181,843,054.35 Total Cash and Investments 183,845,988.32 180,979,653.67 310 142 4.751 4.817 Current Year
September 30
700,315.11
Fiscal Year To Date
2,187,168.37
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
186,638,755.05 190,164,208.28

4.57% 4.56%
Total Earnings Month Ending
6 Month T-Bill Benchmark: 4.38%
NOTES:

1. See "Monies Held by Fiscal Agents" for additional amounts held in the capacity of a trustee.

2. The Maturity Aging Factor of the City's Portfolio = 4.73 months.

3. The unrealized loss resulting from an decrease in Market Values obtained from U.S. Bank of all Securities (excluding LAIF) = $863,400.68 As the City keeps the investments until maturity this loss does not affect the City's cash and investments.

4. The LAIF balance shown includes $5,606,295.02 in bond proceeds from the Gilroy Library 2010 Bonds that can be used exclusively for the construction of the library.

This is to certify that this schedule of investments is in compliance with the City of Gilroy's investment policy and that there are adequate funds available to meet the City's budgeted and actual expenses for the next six months.
__________________________________________________ ____________________ Harjot Sangha, Finance Director
Reporting period 07/01/2024-09/30/2024

Page 1 of 13 ends

11/08/2024

6.2 p. 16 of168
YTM
Par Value Book Value 365
Maturity
Date
Stated
Market Value Rate
Average
Balance Issuer
City of Gilroy
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
September 30, 2024
Days to
Maturity
YTM
CUSIP Investment # 360
Purchase
Date
LAIF
SYSLAIF01 LAIF01 29,247,773.01 29,247,773.01 29,247,773.01 4.490 4.428 4.490 1 SYSLAIF03 LAIF03 8,532,782.29 8,532,782.29 8,532,782.29 4.490 4.428 4.490 1

4.490
LAIF - City of Gilroy
LAIF - Industrial Dev. Auth.

LAIF05 LAIF05 LAIF LIBRARY 5,606,295.02 5,606,295.02 5,606,295.02 4.490 4.428 1 Subtotal and Average 43,786,850.32 43,386,850.32 43,386,850.32 43,386,850.32 4.428 4.490 1 Treasury Notes Securities
912828Z52 USB-10 05/01/2023 8,419,000.00 8,230,414.40 8,346,076.22 1.375 4.037 4.093 122 01/31/2025 91282CGX3 USB-11 07/31/2023 8,186,000.00 8,097,918.64 8,137,750.64 3.875 4.881 4.949 211 04/30/2025 91282CAB7 USB-14 11/07/2023 8,915,000.00 8,466,129.75 8,579,689.41 0.250 4.970 5.039 303 07/31/2025 9128283V0 USB-15 11/07/2023 506,000.00 497,868.58 501,575.02 2.500 5.171 5.243 122 01/31/2025 9128284M9 USB-17 11/07/2023 646,000.00 633,868.12 637,984.75 2.875 5.059 5.129 211 04/30/2025 91282CJE2 USB-20 01/31/2024 9,294,000.00 9,295,115.28 9,348,176.46 5.000 4.368 4.429 395 10/31/2025 91282CHN4 USB-21 04/30/2024 9,905,300.00 9,870,136.19 9,875,541.43 4.750 5.052 5.122 303 07/31/2025 912828ZL7 USB-22 04/30/2024 10,747,600.00 10,330,378.17 10,462,724.81 0.375 5.067 5.138 211 04/30/2025 91282CAB7 USB-23 07/31/2024 868,700.00 837,129.32 837,129.32 0.250 4.720 4.786 303 07/31/2025 91282CAT8 USB-24 07/31/2024 10,461,900.00 9,981,969.41 9,981,969.41 0.250 4.606 4.670 395 10/31/2025 91282CBH3 USB-25 07/31/2024 10,092,000.00 9,554,484.09 9,554,484.09 0.375 4.499 4.562 487 01/31/2026

4.355
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
U. S. TREASURY NOTES
912828YM6 USB-6 U. S. TREASURY NOTES 11/01/2022 7,527,000.00 7,430,353.32 7,510,279.58 1.500 4.296 30 10/31/2024 Subtotal and Average 83,682,049.13 85,568,500.00 83,225,765.27 83,773,381.14 4.665 4.730 280 Treasury Bill -Amortizing
912797HE0 USB-13 11/02/2023 12,248,000.00 12,033,170.08 12,196,969.34 5.000 5.270 5.343 30 10/31/2024

4.755
U.S. TREASURY BILL
912797JR9 USB-19 U.S. TREASURY BILL 01/25/2024 11,000,000.00 10,691,230.00 10,843,215.55 4.501 4.690 114 01/23/2025 Subtotal and Average 22,995,578.19 23,248,000.00 22,724,400.08 23,040,184.89 4.997 5.066 70 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 5.411 5.337 5.411 Other Investments
CLASS PRIME CLASS 1
28,855,375.09 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 5.337 California Class
Subtotal and Average 5.411 1
Total and Average 186,638,755.05 178,830,270.22 175,963,935.57 176,827,336.25 4.751 4.817 142

Page 2 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 17 of 168
YTM
Par Value Book Value 365
Stated
Market Value Rate
Average
Balance Issuer
City of Gilroy Portfolio
Management Portfolio
Details - Cash
September 30, 2024
Days to
Maturity
YTM
CUSIP Investment # 360
Purchase
Date
WELLS FARGO WELLS FARGO 4,405,824.30 4,405,824.30 4,405,824.30 0.000 0.000 Wells Fargo Checking
SYSWFB 1
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash
SYSUNDERCOV UNDERCOV 07/01/2024 698.30 698.30 698.30 0.000 0.000 1 SYS/MUFG MUFG 07/01/2024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1
SYSPETTY PETTY 07/01/2024 2,661.56 2,661.56 2,661.56 0.000 0.000 1

0.000

CHASE BANK MUFG /

UNION BANK PETTY
CASH
SYS/USBANK USB-CASH U. S. BANK 07/01/2024 14,075.71 14,075.71 14,075.71 0.000 1 SYSBAIL BAIL 07/01/2024 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1
SYSDISCOVERY DISCOVERY 07/01/2024 131,208.54 131,208.54 131,208.54 0.000 0.000 1

0.000

WELLS FARGO

WELLS FARGO
SYSICS ICS WELLS FARGO 07/01/2024 459,654.69 459,654.69 459,654.69 0.000 1 SYSWORKING WORKING WORKING CASH 07/01/2024 1,595.00 1,595.00 1,595.00 0.000 0.000 1

0.00 186,638,755.05 183,845,988.32 4.751 4.817 142
Average Balance 1
Total Cash and Investments 180,979,653.67 181,843,054.35

Page 3 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 18 of 168
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)846-0294
City of Gilroy
Investments by Issuer
Active Investments
Grouped by Type - Sorted by Type
September 30, 2024
Market
Market Value Date
Redemption
Security Type Date
Current
Rate
Call
CUSIP Date Collateral Investment #
Investment
Class
YTM
365 Book Value
Type: CHECKING ACCOUNTS

CHASE BANK
SYSUNDERCOV UNDERCOV 698.30 698.30 09/30/2024 1
698.30 698.30
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
CLASS
California Class
CLASS PRIME 26,626,919.90 5.041 26,626,919.90 09/30/2024 5.041 1 26,626,919.90 26,626,919.90 5.041
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
LAIF01
LAIF - City of Gilroy
SYSLAIF01 LAIF 29,247,773.01 4.540 29,247,773.01 09/30/2024 4.540 1 29,247,773.01 29,247,773.01 4.540
Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
LAIF - Industrial Dev. Auth.

SYSLAIF03 LAIF03 LAIF 8,532,782.29 4.540 8,532,782.29 09/30/2024 4.540 1 8,532,782.29 8,532,782.29 4.540
Fair
Subtotal and Average 1

LAIF LIBRARY
LAIF05 LAIF05 LAIF 5,606,295.02 4.540 5,606,295.02 09/30/2024 4.540 1 5,606,295.02 5,606,295.02 4.540
Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
MUFG 0.00

MUFG / UNION BANK
SYS/MUFG 0.00 1

0.00 0.00
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair
Subtotal and Average

PETTY CASH
SYSPETTY PETTY 2,661.56 2,661.56 09/30/2024 1
2,661.56 2,661.56
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
U. S. BANK
SYS/USBANK USB-CASH Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair 14,075.71 14,075.71 09/30/2024 1

Page 4 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 19 of 168
Market
Market Value Date
Redemption
Security Type Date
Current
Rate
Call
Date Collateral
City of Gilroy
Investments by Issuer
Grouped by Type - Sorted by Type
CUSIP Investment #
Investment
Class
YTM
365 Book Value
Subtotal and Average 14,075.71 14,075.71 1

WELLS FARGO
SYSWFB WELLS FARGO Wells Fargo Checking Fair 4,405,824.30 4,405,824.30 09/30/2024 1 SYSBAIL BAIL Fair 0.00 1
SYSDISCOVERY DISCOVERY Fair 131,208.54 1
SYSICS ICS 1
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair

0.00 131,208.54 09/30/2024
459,654.69 459,654.69 09/30/2024
Subtotal and Average 4,996,687.53 4,996,687.53 1

WORKING

WORKING CASH
SYSWORKING 1,595.00 1,595.00 09/30/2024 1
1,595.00 1,595.00
Other Banks-Misc.Account-Petty Cash Fair
Subtotal and Average 1
Type: NOT CALLABLE
U.S. TREASURY BILL
912797HE0 USB-13 Fair 12,196,969.34 5.000 30
912797JR9 USB-19 4.501 114
Treasury Bill -Amortizing
Treasury Bill -Amortizing Fair
12,200,232.80 09/30/2024
10,845,560.00 09/30/2024

5.343 10/31/2024
10,843,215.55 4.755 01/23/2025
Subtotal and Average 23,040,184.89 23,045,792.80 5.066 69 U. S. TREASURY NOTES
912828Z52 USB-10 Fair 8,346,076.22 1.375 122
91282CGX3 USB-11 Fair 8,137,750.64 3.875 211
91282CAB7 USB-14 Fair 8,579,689.41 0.250 303
9128283V0 USB-15 Fair 501,575.02 2.500 122
9128284M9 USB-17 Fair 637,984.75 2.875 211
91282CJE2 USB-20 Fair 9,348,176.46 5.000 395
91282CHN4 USB-21 Fair 9,875,541.43 4.750 303
912828ZL7 USB-22 Fair 10,462,724.81 0.375 211
91282CAB7 USB-23 Fair 837,129.32 0.250 303
91282CAT8 USB-24 Fair 9,981,969.41 0.250 395
91282CBH3 USB-25 Fair 9,554,484.09 0.375 487
912828YM6 USB-6 1.500 30
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities
Treasury Notes Securities Fair
8,331,442.40 09/30/2024
8,165,371.28 09/30/2024
8,638,724.15 09/30/2024
502,579.44 09/30/2024
640,696.34 09/30/2024
9,396,419.88 09/30/2024
9,958,293.36 09/30/2024
10,506,531.33 09/30/2024
841,778.99 09/30/2024
10,056,919.85 09/30/2024
9,644,520.72 09/30/2024
7,506,074.94 09/30/2024

4.093 01/31/2025

4.949 04/30/2025

5.039 07/31/2025

5.243 01/31/2025

5.129 04/30/2025

4.429 10/31/2025

5.122 07/31/2025

5.138 04/30/2025

4.786 07/31/2025

4.670 10/31/2025

4.562 01/31/2026
7,510,279.58 4.355 10/31/2024
Subtotal and Average 83,773,381.14 84,189,352.68 4.730 280 Total and Average 181,843,054.35 182,264,633.80 4.642 138

Page 5 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 20 of 168
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)846-0294
City of Gilroy
Purchases Report
Sorted by Type - Type
July 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024
Original
Par Value
Ending
Book Value
Sec.

Type Type
Maturity
YTM
Accrued Interest
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Payment Periods at Purchase Date Purchase
Date
Principal
Purchased
Rate at
Purchase
UNDERCOV 698.30 698.30
MUFG 0.00 0.00
PETTY 2,661.56 2,661.56
USB-CASH 9,577.64 14,075.71
BAIL 0.00 0.00
DISCOVERY 131,097.59 131,208.54

CHECKING ACCOUNTS

SYSUNDERCOV

SYS/MUFG

SYSPETTY

SYS/USBANK

SYSBAIL

SYSDISCOVERY
SYSICS ICS 909,077.71 459,654.69
1,595.00 1,595.00
698.30 07/01/2024 08/01 - Monthly

0.00 07/01/2024 01/31 - Monthly
2,661.56 07/01/2024 08/01 - Monthly
9,577.64 07/01/2024 07/01 - Monthly

0.00 07/01/2024 08/01 - Monthly
131,097.59 07/01/2024 02/01 - Monthly
909,077.71 07/01/2024 10/31 - Monthly
SYSWORKING WORKING 1,595.00 07/01/2024 08/01 - Monthly
CHECKING PA2 CHASE
CHECKING PA2 MUFG
CHECKING PA2 PETTY
CHECKING PA2 USBANK
CHECKING PA2 WFB
CHECKING PA2 WFB
CHECKING PA2 WFB
CHECKING PA2 WORKIN
Subtotal 1,054,707.80 1,054,707.80 0.00 609,893.80

NOT CALLABLE
91282CAB7 USB-23 NOT TRC USTN 830,669.31 4.786 837,129.32 91282CAT8 USB-24 NOT TRC USTN 9,906,638.53 6,538.69 4.670 9,981,969.41

0.250 07/31/2025

0.250 10/31/2025
9,486,052.91 0.375 01/31/2026 4.562 9,554,484.09
868,700.00 07/31/2024 01/31 - 07/31
10,461,900.00 07/31/2024 10/31 - 04/30
91282CBH3 USB-25 NOT TRC USTN 10,092,000.00 07/31/2024 01/31 - 07/31 Subtotal 21,422,600.00 20,223,360.75 6,538.69 20,373,582.82 Total Purchases 22,477,307.80 21,278,068.55 6,538.69 20,983,476.62

Page 6 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 21 of 168
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408)846-0294
City of Gilroy
Maturity Report
Sorted by Maturity Date
Amounts due during July 1, 2024 - September 30, 2024
Rate
Par Value at Maturity
Sec.

Type Type
Maturity
Date
Maturity
Interest Proceeds Income
Net
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Purchase
Date
Book Value
at Maturity
91282CFA4 USB-18 NOT TRC USTN 3.000 12,078,000.00 181,170.00 12,259,170.00 181,170.00 9128282N9 USB-8 NOT TRC USTN 2.125 80,601.25 7,666,601.25 12,078,000.00 07/31/2024 11/07/2023
7,586,000.00 07/31/2024 11/01/2022 7,586,000.00 80,601.25 Total Maturities 19,664,000.00 19,664,000.00 261,771.25 19,925,771.25 261,771.25

Page 7 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 22 of 168
DESCRIPTION DEC MAR JUN SEP % of Total
2023 2024 2024 2024 SEP
LAIF:

CITY OF GILROY 28,719,992 31,701,394 42,981,586 29,247,773 16.54% GILROY INDUSTRIAL DEV AGENCY 35,000,001 35,461,388 8,340,144 8,532,782 4.83% GILROY LIBRARY 2010 BOND 5,430,581 5,485,138 5,543,745 5,606,295 3.17% SUB TOTAL 69,150,575 72,647,920 56,865,475 43,386,850 24.54% CALIFORNIA CLASS - - 27,751,932 26,626,920 15.06%
US GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES:

TREASURY NOTES SECURITIES 87,926,764 81,636,984 82,669,517 83,773,381 47.38% TREASURY BILL-AMORTIZING 15,118,397 22,477,218 22,757,163 23,040,185 13.03% SUB TOTAL 103,045,161 104,114,202 105,426,680 106,813,566 60.41% GRAND TOTAL (Book Value) 172,195,736 176,762,122 190,044,087 176,827,336 100.00% Quarterly Movement over the Last 4 Quarters

6.2 p. 23 of 168
0 20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
160,000,000
180,000,000
200,000,000
September
2022
December
2022
March
2023
June
2023
September
2023
December
2023
March
2024
June
2024
September
2024
City of Gilroy
Investments From:

September 30, 2022 to September 30, 2024
LAIF CALIFORNIA CLASS US GOVT. AGENCIES

Page 9 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 24 of 168
LAIF, $43M, 24%
California Class, $27M, 14%
Treasury Notes Securities,
$84M, 46%
Treasury Bill - Amortizing,
$23M, 13%
Cash or Equivelent, $5M, 3%
Book Value by Investment Type
As of September 30, 2024
Value of Portfolio: $181,843,054

Page 10 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 25 of 168
LAIF, CA Class, Bank Checking
Accounts, $75M, 41%
Short Term (less than 1 year),
$78M, 43%
Medium Term (1 to 5 years),
$29M, 16%
Value of Portfolio: $181,843,054
Portfolio By Maturity
As Of September 30, 2024

Page 11 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 26 of 168
0 1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 23/24 24/25 est* Interest Earnings
Fiscal Years
*Estimate of full year interest earnings for FY24/25
City of Gilroy
Interest Earnings FY2015 - FY2025

Page 12 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 27 of 168

CITY OF GILROY

MONIES HELD BY FISCAL AGENTS
DESCRIPTION VALUE **
AS OF 9/30/24
HIGHWAY 152 SPECIAL TAX BONDS SERIES 2018
SPECIAL TAX FUND - Bond REVENUE - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 810-10435 GOLDMAN SACHS MONEY MARKET FUND #466, CUSIP #3814W265 8,336.28 RESERVE FUND - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 810-10430
GOLDMAN SACHS MONEY MARKET FUND #466, CUSIP #3814W265 291,823.44 SPECIAL TAX FUND - INTEREST ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 810-10550 GOLDMAN SACHS MONEY MARKET FUND #466, CUSIP #3814W265 0.09 SPECIAL TAX FUND - PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 810-10445 GOLDMAN SACHS MONEY MARKET FUND #466, CUSIP #3814W265 0.00 GILROY PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS 2020A REVENUE FUND - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 520-10435
GOLDMAN SACHS FINANCIAL SQUARE MMKT #466, CUSIP #38141W265 38.85 INTEREST ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 520-10440 GOLDMAN SACHS FINANCIAL SQUARE MMKT #466, CUSIP #38141W265 258.90 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 520-10445 GOLDMAN SACHS TR FINL SQ GV ADM #466, CUSIP #38141W265 568.17 GILROY PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY REFUNDING LEASE REV BONDS 2022A INTEREST ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 510-10440 FIRST AM.GOVT OB FD CL D, CUSIP #31846V401, U.S. TREASURY BILL #912796C31 33.31 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNT - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 510-10445 FIRST AM.GOVT OB FD CL D, CUSIP #31846V401, U.S. TREASURY BILL #912796C31 146.25 GILROY PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY WASTEWATER REV BONDS 2021A BOND PAYMENT FUND - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL ACCT 700-10428 FIRST AM.GOVT OB FD CL D, CUSIP #31846V401, U.S. TREASURY BILL #912796C31, 1,985.26 ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION FUND - HELD BY U.S. BANK - GL Acct 700-10426 LAIF MONEY MARKET FUND #5399989H9 10,694,267.23
GILROY POST - SECTION 115 TRUST HELD BY PARS
OPEB 557,669.87
PENSION 3,964,874.16

TOTAL 15,520,001.81
** Market Values

Page 13 of 13 ends

6.2 p. 28 of 168

Page 1 of 5 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No.
25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a
Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a
Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for
Construction
Meeting Date: November 18, 2024
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Daniel Padilla, City Engineer
Prepared By: Susana Ramirez, Engineer I
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Ensure Neighborhood Equity from City Services Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract to Villalobos and Associates in the amount of $147,755, approve a project contingency of $38,183.33, approve a total project expenditure of $179,943.33 for the construction of the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project (No.25- PW-291), and authorize the City Administrator to execute the contract and associated documents.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Eligible activities that can be funded under Capital Improvements include annual curb ramp and sidewalk improvements to be used within low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project (Project), No. 25-PW-291, will install new curb ramps that are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

7.1 p. 29 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for Construction City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 The CDBG capital improvement allocation for the Project was approved by the City Council on May 6, 2024, for the Program Year 2024-25. The grant award amount for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project was $179,943.33. The Annual Action Plan identified the sidewalk and curb ramp projects as public improvements that create safe pedestrian pathways in low and moderate-income neighborhoods. Based on U.S.

Census tract data, Gilroy has neighborhoods that meet the low and moderate-income thresholds. The curb ramps identified in this project were chosen at locations in these neighborhoods where there currently are no curb ramps or the existing ramps are in disrepair and are non-ADA compliant ramps.

The Project consists of installing 20 new curb ramps and associated work. The lowest responsive and responsible Base Bid, which consists of the installation of 14 new curb ramps and associated work, was received from Villalobos and Associates in the amount of $101,385.00. The project also includes two Bid Additive Alternates to upgrade 6 additional curb ramps, which were bid at $40,370.00. The Base Bid and Bid Additive Alternates total $141,755.00. The addition of $38,188.33 (27%) in contingency brings the total Project expenditure to the grant award amount of $179,943.33. The project will be funded with CDBG Grant Funds.

BACKGROUND
The City is a designated “entitlement” jurisdiction participating in HUD’s CDBG Program. This classification as an “entitlement” jurisdiction allows the City to receive an annual allocation of CDBG funds. The City is required to spend a minimum amount of these funds each year. The City is also required to submit an Annual Action Plan (Plan), which identifies specific projects/activities within that fiscal/program year. Staff from the Community Development and Public Works Departments collaborated to identify projects that qualify as defined by HUD.

Eligible activities that can be funded under Capital Improvements include the annual curb ramp and sidewalk improvements, principally within low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project, No. 25-PW-291, was created to install new curb ramps that are in compliance with ADA. Staff identified substandard sidewalks, curb ramps, and areas that lack curb ramps in low and moderate-income neighborhoods and assembled a bid package to keep costs within available CDBG funds.

ANALYSIS
The FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project includes the installation of 14 new ADA compliant curb ramps and associated work.

In addition to the 14 curb ramps in the Base Bid, the Project also advertised the following two bid additive alternates:

7.1 p. 30 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for Construction City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 • Bid Additive Alternate 1 – Install 2 ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps and Associated Work
• Bid Additive Alternate 2 – Install 4 ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps and Associated Work
The Project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News and on the City’s website on September 27, 2024. Staff conducted the bid opening on October 16, 2024, and the City received four bids. A bid summary is provided below.

RANK COMPANY NAME TOTAL BASE
BID

BID ADDITIVE
ALTERNATE 1

BID ADDITIVE
ALTERNATE 2
TOTAL
1 Villalobos &
Associates
$101,385.00 $13,520.00 $26,850.00 $141,755.00
2 Rapid Grading
Services
$131,739.28 $17,466.00 $34,658.00 $183,863.28
3 FBD Vanguard $179,191.00 $25,560.00 $39,800.00 $244,551.00 4 McKim
Corporation
$182,950.00 $34,000.00 $67,500.00 $284,450.00
The lowest responsive and responsible bidder was Villalobos and Associates, with a total base bid of $101,385.00. The Engineer’s Estimate was $156,475.00. The lowest bid was 35% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, Villalobos and Associates, with at total bid of $141,755.00 (including the Base Bid and Bid Additive Alternates 1 & 2).

The 20 curb ramps included in this year’s project are located at the following intersections:

1. Cypress Ct/ Laurel Dr (2)

2. Cypress Ct/ Juniper Dr (2)

3. Welburn Ave/ Doris Ct (2)

4. Welburn Ave/ Carmel St (1)

5. Welburn Ave/ Diane Ct (2)

6. Sherwood Dr/ Carmel St (2)

7. Sherwood Dr/ David Ct (1)

8. Irish Ct/ Parish Wy (2)

9. Ryan Ct/ Parish Wy (2)

7.1 p. 31 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for Construction City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 10. El Cerrito Wy/ Hanna St (4)
These locations were selected based on feedback from residents and in coordination with the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project, which will be constructing curb ramps at another 51 locations.

ALTERNATIVES
The alternative to the staff recommendation is to reject all bids. Staff does not recommend this option as there is a grant deadline to spend the monies and submit reimbursement to HUD by April 15, 2025. Not meeting the set deadline would jeopardize the allocation of future CDBG funds from HUD due to not utilizing funds in a timely manner.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The Total Bid, including the Base Bid and Bid Additive Alternates 1 & 2, is $141,755.

Staff also recommends approval of a contingency in the amount of $38,188.33 (27%) for a total construction allocation of $179,943.33. The 27% contingency would be for potential unforeseen conditions, additional sidewalk repair adjacent to the curb ramp locations, or potential changes in the scope of work during construction. Additionally, any unused funds would be returned to the CDBG Fund and would not be available for use on any other Public Works Projects.

The City’s CDBG Fund (Fund 245) receives CDBG Program funding annually from HUD. The Project will be funded through the City’s approved Program Year 2024-25 CDBG allocation. The necessary budgetary appropriations to accommodate this project’s expenditure are included with the separate comprehensive citywide mid-cycle budget adjustments agenda item on the November 18th City Council meeting.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Affected residents will be notified in advance of the construction by the City and the contractor.

NEXT STEPS
Upon Council’s approval of this contract, the contract will be executed, and staff will work with the contractor to develop a final project schedule to begin construction in December 2024.

Attachments:

7.1 p. 32 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-291 in the amount of $141,755, Approve a Project Contingency of $38,188.33, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $179,943.33 for Construction City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 1.Villalobos and Associates - Agreement

7.1 p. 33 of 168

7.1 p. 34 of 168

7.1 p. 35 of 168

7.1 p. 36 of 168

7.1 p. 37 of 168

Page 1 of 5 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, Approve a Total Project
Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt
a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by
$169,515
Meeting Date: November 18, 2024
From: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
Department: Public Works
Submitted By: Daniel Padilla, City Engineer
Prepared By: Susana Ramirez, Engineer I
STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION

2. Adopt a resolution amending the budget.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council adopted the FY24 and FY25 budget, and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY24 through FY28 on June 5, 2023. The FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project is included in the FY24-FY28 CIP as Project #800070. The budget allotted for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 (Project) was $418,247.00.

7.2 p. 38 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by $169,515
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 The Project consists of installing 51 new curb ramps and associated work. The lowest responsive and responsible Base Bid, which consists of the installation of 36 new curb ramps and associated work, was received from Villalobos and Associates in the amount of $260,020.00. The project also includes two Bid Additive Alternates to upgrade 15 additional curb ramps, which were bid at $96,080.00. The Base Bid and Bid Additive Alternates total $356,100.00. The addition of $53,415.00 (15%) in contingency brings the total Project expenditure to the amount of $409,515.00. The Project will be funded with Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Grant funds, Vehicle Registration Fees (VRF), and Gas Taxes.

BACKGROUND
The Annual Citywide Curb Ramp project upgrades existing deficient curb ramps to meet ADA compliance. Staff has prioritized locations where there currently are no curb ramps followed by upgrading existing non-compliant curb ramps to improve accessibility for the City’s residents and visitors. Staff have identified approximately 65 locations around the City with no pedestrian curb ramps. Based on the Engineer’s Estimate and the available funding for this project, staff anticipated that up to 51 curb ramps could be installed.

ANALYSIS
The FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project includes the installation of 36 new ADAcompliant curb ramps and associated work.

In addition to the 36 curb ramps in the Base Bid, the Project also advertised the following two bid additive alternates:
• Bid Additive Alternate 1 – Install 7 ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps and Associated Work
• Bid Additive Alternate 2 – Install 8 ADA-Compliant Curb Ramps and Associated Work
The Project was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News and on the City’s website on September 27, 2024. Staff conducted the bid opening on October 15, 2024, and the City received four bids. A bid summary is provided below.

RANK COMPANY
NAME

TOTAL BASE
BID

BID ADDITIVE
ALTERNATE 1

BID ADDITIVE
ALTERNATE 2
TOTAL
1 Villalobos &
Associates
$260,020.00 $44,850.00 $51,230.00 $356,100.00
2 Sposeto
Engineering
$348,850.00 $55,500.00 $63,400.00 $467,750.00
3 FBD
Vanguard
$364,933.00 $73,650.00 $76,200.00 $514,783.00
4 McKim
Corporation
$370,619.80 $73,750.00 $84,250.00 $528,619.80

7.2 p. 39 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by $169,515
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 The lowest responsive and responsible bidder was Villalobos and Associates, with a total base bid of $260,020.00. The Engineer’s Estimate was $363,700.00. The lowest bid was 28.5% lower than the Engineer’s Estimate. Staff recommends awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, Villalobos and Associates, with at total bid of $356,100.00 (including the Base Bid and Bid Alternates 1 & 2).

The 51 curb ramps included in this year’s project are located at the following intersections:

1. Calabrese Wy/Taryn Ln (2)

2. El Dorado Dr/Deville Ct (2)

3. El Dorado Dr/Catalina Ct (2)

4. El Dorado Dr/Delta Dr (2)

5. Mantelli Dr/Kern Ave (3)

6. Ramona Wy/Amanda Ave (4)

7. Maria Wy/Amanda Ave (2)

8. Lawrence Dr/Gary St (2)

9. Fernwood Ln/Westwood Dr (2)

10. Kertwood Ct/Westwood Dr (2)

11. San Miguel St/Santa Barbara Dr (2)

12. San Miguel St/Santa Inez Ct (1)

13. San Miguel St/Santa Maria Ct (2)

14. San Miguel St/Los Padres Ct (1)

15. San Miguel St/El Roble Ct (2)

16. Second St/Filice Dr (2)

17. Second St/Miller Ave (2)

18. Second St/Rea St (2)

19. Second St/Princevalle St (3)

20. Third St/Santa Theresa Dr (1)

21. Third St/Filice Dr (4)

22. Third St/Miller Ave (3)

23. Fourth St/Princevalle St (1)

24. Eschenburg Dr/Princevalle St (2)
These locations were selected based on feedback from residents and in coordination with the FY25 Annual CDBG Sidewalk/Curb Ramp Project, which will be constructing curb ramps at another 20 locations.

ALTERNATIVES
The alternative to the staff recommendation is to reject all bids. Staff does not recommend this option as there is a TDA grant deadline to spend the monies by June 30, 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE

7.2 p. 40 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by $169,515
City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 The Total Bid, including the Base Bid and Bid Additive Alternates 1 & 2, is $356,100.

Staff also recommends approval of a contingency in the amount of $53,415.00 (15%) for a total construction allocation of $409,515.00. The 15% contingency would be for potential unforeseen conditions or potential changes in the scope of work during construction.

The Project will be funded from Transportation/Mobility Grant (Fund 215), Vehicle Registration Fees (Fund 220), and Gas Taxes (Fund 205). At the time the budget was adopted, in June 2023, staff estimated drawing $81,753 from the Countywide Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 allocation in FY25 for this project; however, given that Gilroy had unused allocations from prior years, staff requested and was approved to utilize a total of $240,000 in FY25. In addition, the Vehicle Registration Fee allocation was estimated at $20,000 but the approved allocation is $40,000. The below table outlines the adopted and the recommended funding for the project, and the necessary budget amendment to fully appropriate the expenditure for this project. The budget amendment resolution is included with this staff report.

Funding
Source
FY25
Budgeted
FY25
Recommended
Budget
Amendment
Transportation/
Mobility Grant
(215)
$ 81,753 $240,000 $158,247
Vehicle
Registration
Fees (220)
$ 20,000 $40,000 $20,000
Gas Taxes (205) $ 138,247 $129,515 (8,732)
Total $ 240,000 $409,515 $169,515

PUBLIC OUTREACH
Affected residents will be notified in advance of the construction by the City and the contractor.

Attachments:

1. Budget Amendment Resolution

2. Villalobos and Associates – Agreement

7.2 p. 41 of 168
Award a Contract to Villalobos and Associates for the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project No. 25-PW-290 in the amount of $356,100, Approve a Project Contingency of $53,415, and Approve a Total Project Expenditure of $409,515 for Construction, and Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Adopted Budget by $169,515
City of Gilroy City Council Page 5 of 5 November 18, 2024 1 7 7.2
p. 42 of 168
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GILROY AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR
THE CITY OF GILROY FOR 2024-2025 FISCAL
YEAR
WHEREAS, the City Administrator prepared and submitted to the City Council a budget for the City of Gilroy for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, and the City Council carefully examined, considered and adopted the same on June 5, 2023; and WHEREAS, City Staff has prepared and submitted to the City Council proposed amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 (FY25) for the City of Gilroy in the staff report dated November 18, 2024, for the award of the FY25 Annual Citywide Curb Ramp Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the expenditure appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 in Fund 215 – Transportation/Mobility Grant Fund shall be increased by $158,247, in Fund 220 – Vehicle Registration Fund shall be increased by $20,000, and in Fund 205 – Gas Taxes Fund shall be decreased by $8,732.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November 2024 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:

Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk

7.2 p. 43 of 168

7.2 p. 44 of 168

7.2 p. 45 of 168

7.2 p. 46 of 168

7.2 p. 47 of 168

Page 1 of 4 ends

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant
Services in the amount of $749,899
Meeting Date: November 18, 2024
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 Maintain and Improve City Infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION
Council:

1. Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design in the amount of $749,899; and,

2. Authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement and all other related documents.

BACKGROUND
The City‘s current Civic Center Master Plan was adopted in 2002.

The Civic Center sites comprise approximately 14 acres in central Gilroy. The area is bordered by Sixth Street on the north and Seventh Street to the south, Dowdy Street to the west and Church Street to the east. Within the area, the City owns all property with the exception of three homes along Dowdy Street.

7.3 p. 48 of 168
Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services in the amount of $749,899
City of Gilroy City Council Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2024 sizes; four single family residential homes (three are not currently city-owned); one small grass area; Wheeler Park; and a central open area.

With aging and underutilized Civic Center facilities due to condition and growing service demands, the need to modernize the City’s Civic Center Master Plan and prepare the financial measures to implement the re-development of the Civic Center has increased dramatically. The Gilroy City Council adopted this workplan item and authorized the preparation of a new Civic Center Master Plan and appropriated $750,000 in Fiscal Year 2023-24 (FY24) for this purpose.

The Civic Center Master Plan update will inventory and analyze existing Civic Center facilities and open spaces and their uses. It will identify and compile Civic Center needs and desires based on City Council, staff, and community input. The Consultant is to identify opportunities and issues with the development of the Civic Center; present at least three (3) alternative programs and applicable conceptual design plans with cost estimates; and identify potential financing strategies, as well as proceed towards a general obligation bond ballot measure, for re-development of the Civic Center.

Alternatives are to be formulated to meet current and future City and community programming needs while addressing operational and logistical issues, including, but not limited to maintenance, traffic circulation, parking needs, and accessibility.

The consultant will gather, organize, and analyze data and inputs to formulate a vision of the Civic Center’s character and role in the community and develop recommendations of Civic Center programming and design alternatives for the Council’s consideration.

The Master Plan process will be approached collaboratively with the community, as described more fully in the Public Outreach section below.

ANALYSIS
The City issued the RFP in September of 2024 (attached) and received two responses.

Due to the scope of work entailed in the Civic Center Master Plan update project, the awarded firm for this update is precluded from bidding on the design of each building for construction. This was a repeated question by firms in the question-and-answer phase of the procurement process. We suspect that the low number of proposals is related to this preclusion of future work on the engineering portion of the project. The two firms that submitted, and the scores of each, are below.

Firm Name Estimated Cost Average Score
ELS Architecture and Urban Design $749,899 71
Group 4 Architecture $749,2001 70.92
1 The cost did not include the environmental work associated with the project, which would be an additional cost of an unstated amount in addition to this total.

7.3 p. 49 of 168
Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services in the amount of $749,899
City of Gilroy City Council Page 3 of 4 November 18, 2024 The highest score, and the recommended firm for this contract, is ELS Architecture and Urban Design. The amount proposed for the agreement is $749,899. Their proposal is also attached to this staff report.

Comments from the review team identified that the ELS proposal, despite a higher cost by approximately $700, includes environmental work, which the Group 4 proposal identifies it as a separate work, which would be additional cost beyond their proposal amount, as well as extending the length of the project.

The contract will be the City’s standard form of agreement, and the scope of work and milestone schedule will be based on the proposal’s response timeframe and project phasing. The project timeframe is anticipated to extend over two years, and reach completion just in time for Council to consider funding mechanisms in time, including potential bond financing, during the 2026 election, should Council determine to proceed at that time. The project timeline is tight against that schedule. The estimated adoption date of the Civic Center Master Plan would be at a meeting of the City Council in late May or early June of 2026, right before the last meetings for Council to approve submitting a ballot measure. Any prolonged delay in implementing the project may remove the 2026 election as an option for the City Council to consider, potentially resulting in an additional two years before commencing the project, including a new community/youth center component.

Proposed Project Schedule (in summary)
Task 1 – Project Initiation – two weeks
Task 2 – Existing Conditions Assessment – five weeks
Task 3 – Needs Assessment – 16 weeks
Task 4 – Master Plan Design – 10 months
Task 5 – Master Plan Adoption – six weeks
Task 6 – Project Financing – 12 months
Task 7 – Project Development, Design Engineering, and Construction Assistance – 18 months
Financing consideration will be part-way into Task 6, between 1.5 and 2 years out from project commencement.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may refuse to award the agreement to ELS and reject all proposals. This is not recommended, as the procurement process would be required to restart, delaying the project. It is also anticipated that restarting the process would unlikely yield different results without reducing the scope of work, and may result in higher contract costs.

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE

7.3 p. 50 of 168
Award a contract to ELS Architecture and Urban Design for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services in the amount of $749,899
City of Gilroy City Council Page 4 of 4 November 18, 2024 $749,200 from the Public Facilities Impact Fund. The City Council appropriated $750,000 for this project in Fiscal Year 2024. The Mid-Cycle Budget Review and Adjustments agenda item on the agenda for this meeting proposes to move these funds to Fiscal Year 2025, which will provide sufficient appropriations for the agreement.

There is no impact to the General Fund.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This item was included in budget discussions in May of 2023, and was included in the publicly posted agenda for this meeting. Additionally, the request for proposals was advertised in the San Jose Mercury News.

The Master Plan process will be approached collaboratively with the community, stakeholders, and staff. The project schedule includes working with community members and City staff, facilitating public participation, data gathering and analysis, document preparation, and facilitating reviews by key stakeholders and policy makers, including the public at-large, City staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council.

NEXT STEPS
If approved by Council, staff will complete the contract with the selected vendor and commence the project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. ELS Proposal - Civic Center Master Plan

2. Civic Center Master Plan Request for Proposals (24-RFP-AD-506)

7.3 p. 51 of 168
Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services

CITY OF GILROY
No. 24-RFP-AD-506
November 1, 2024
Statement of Qualifi cations

7.3 p. 52 of 168
November 1, 2024
Attention: Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services Dear Bryce and Selection Committee:

Modernizing your Civic Center through a new master plan will mark an important milestone in Gilroy’s history, offering the city’s staff and citizens a central location that supports not only civic services but a community-wide sense of belonging. We are grateful for the chance to collaborate with your team on this important effort and to assist you in seeing the project to completion.

Over the past thirty years, EMC has built a trusted working relationship with the City of Gilroy. And for almost a decade, ELS and EMC Planning Group have enjoyed working together to help cities and communities achieve long-term planning goals through master plans and related efforts. Together, the ELS/EMC team brings architectural, master planning, and CEQA experience, combined with nuanced local knowledge and a history of effective community outreach.

Joining us is a talented and experienced team of consultants including SWA Group and Tramutola. The internationally recognized SWA Group brings an award-winning team of landscape architects with a gift for establishing a sense of place; their understanding of civic design and local plant knowledge will help ensure that the Gilroy Civic Center is a year-round model of gracious, sustainable beauty. Larry Tramutola is recognized as one of the country’s leading figures in community engagement, political strategy, and crafting tax measures that can get passed. He has worked collaboratively with clients to plan for and win 400+ local tax elections that have produced well over $50 billion in new revenue for community facilities, services, and programs around California, from civic centers and schools to hospitals and rec centers. Together, our team comprises the leadership needed to guide the city through the processes of community engagement, planning and city council approvals, and project funding and delivery.

Founded in 1967 and headquartered in Berkeley, California, ELS (the firm’s legal name) is an award-winning architectural practice with a 57-year tradition in design for the public realm. We are a privately held C Corporation registered in California, with a board of directors comprising five of the firm’s senior design leaders.

Established in 1978 and located in Monterey, EMC is an interdisciplinary land use and environmental planning firm that assists municipalities with a range of consulting services. In its earliest days, EMC wrote EIRs for entities in Monterey County, and since then, the focus has been on supporting cities, counties, and special districts throughout California.

At ELS, we have a passion for designing places that respond to and enliven their surroundings, becoming the heart of the communities they serve.

With 200+ design awards to our name, we’re proud of our track record of helping communities throughout the Bay Area realize their dreams through the collaborative design of public places. This includes comprehensive and buildable master plans and other design services that help cities articulate and achieve targets for sustainable growth. Regardless of type, our projects inspire renewed civic participation, encourage interaction, and support personal and collective achievement among all users.

We understand that the creation of a Master Plan to modernize Gilroy’s Civic Center commences a long-held dream for the City. Fulfilling that dream will involve the collaborative development of a clear vision, an action plan, a timeline, and a financial strategy. When taken together and they are once built out, these components will meet your government’s administrative and operational needs while also articulating and supporting the aspirations of the entire Gilroy community (yourself included)!
As our approach will show in detail, we’re excited by the many assets of Gilroy’s existing civic center and by this project’s massive potential. We’re ready to focus more deeply with your team on envisioning an ultra-functional, communityoriented site that will streamline civic and administrative operations while also becoming a destination for residents and visitors alike. 2040 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 510.549.2929
BERKELEY | LOS ANGELES | SACRAMENTO | SAN DIEGO
elsarch.com

7.3 p. 53 of 168
The planning and design work of ELS, as the prime consultant, will be supplemented by EMC and the additional subconsultant firms listed later in this response. Together, our team will cover the full range of disciplines called for in the RFP. ELS and any subconsultants performing work for ELS are free of any conflict of interest. ELS acknowledges our review and acceptance of the City’s standard agreement. As an ELS principal and a board member, I, David Masenten, am authorized to bind the firm to the provisions of this RFP and any awarded contract. We have received Addendum 1, Addendum 2, and the Question and Answer document.

Thank you for the chance to add to Gilroy’s identity through a remarkable new public space.

Sincerely,
ELS Architecture and Urban Design EMC Planning Group
David Masenten, AIA, LEED AP BD+C Teri Wissler Adam
Principal Senior Principal
[email protected] [email protected]
510.734.6143 831.649.1799 x203
2040 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 510.549.2929
BERKELEY | LOS ANGELES | SACRAMENTO | SAN DIEGO
elsarch.com

7.3 p. 54 of 168

CONTENTS

1. + Company Background

2. + Company and Project Team Qualifications

3. + References

4. + Proposed Methodology

5. + Proposed Timeline

6. + Pricing

7. + Additional Information

7.3 p. 55 of 168
Cañada College Kinesiology & Wellness Building | Redwood City, CA + company background 1

7.3 p. 56 of 168
Company Background
ELS ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN | Prime
Founded in 1967 and headquartered in Berkeley, California, ELS is an award-winning architectural practice with a 57-year tradition in design for the public realm. Our firm is a privately held C Corporation registered in California, governed by a board of directors comprising five of the firm’s senior design leaders. The firm focuses on public, municipal, historic preservation, sports, recreational, community, educational, adaptive reuse, urban design, retail, and mixed-use projects. With an experienced staff of 40+ professionals, we provide complete architectural services from master planning, programming, and conceptual design through construction administration. Our work also includes site analysis, interior design, integrated sustainable design, LEED and WELL certification, and community outreach. ELS has been honored with nearly 200 design awards with projects recognized by the California Parks and Recreation Society, California Preservation Foundation, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, and AIA California and local chapters. The firm was a recipient of the prestigious AIA California Council Firm Award and has been included in the Architect 50 for many consecutive years. ELS is also regularly included in Architectural Record’s Top 300 Architecture Firms.

ELS’ approach to master planning unites analytical strength with creative expertise in community engagement, physical planning, building design and sustainability efforts tailored to their context. Most recently we have been working with municipal clients to help them update their physical facilities in ways that respond to the rapidly changing environment for office work and sustainable operations.

For efforts like these, our goal is to maximize the value of each dollar spent while extending the impact of operational and managerial staff.

In many cases, we develop a thorough and broad-based outreach plan that empowers municipal leaders to fulfill their roles as civic representatives while instilling our planning with the voices of the broadest and most diverse community possible.

Our interest in sustainable design and planning informs our architectural solutions and ensures that sustainability is more than merely a check mark in the process; rather, it is a significant design goal that shapes our creative process. ELS initiates each project with the belief that environmentally sensitive design results in quality projects that bring long-term benefits. We integrate holistic thinking to our master-planning process, with the understanding that building, landscape, circulation, transit/parking, and connectivity all play a role in supporting one another and in long-term resilience.

EMC PLANNING GROUP | CEQA Consulting
EMC Planning Group is an interdisciplinary land use and environmental planning firm that has assisted cities, counties, and special districts with environmental and planning consulting services for the past 46 years. Established in 1978, EMC Planning Group began writing EIRs for Monterey County, and over the past 46 years has grown to provide a wide variety of planning and environmental services.

The firm’s environmental staff assists public agencies with preparation of environmental documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), obtaining various regulatory permits from regional, state, and federal agencies for capital improvement projects, and conducting technical site assessments. Our land use planners not only provide support to public agency planning departments by reviewing and processing development project applications ranging from conditional use permits to large annexations and subdivisions, but are also capable of providing long-range planning services such as preparing general plan updates and implementation measures, specific plans, master development plans, housing element updates and pro housing designations, and are experienced with grant writing for public improvement projects.

SWA GROUP | Landscape Architecture
Founded in Northern California, SWA is a global leader in landscape architecture, planning, and urban design. Over our 67-year history, we have maintained a passion for imaginative, solution-oriented design that enhances land, cities, and people’s lives. Our work covers a broad range of market sectors and includes hundreds of master planning and civic projects. With over four decades of collaboration, we have successfully completed many projects with ELS.

We believe successful master plans carefully consider the unique characteristics of each site and community. We design frameworks that encompass ecological, social, and economic insights. Throughout each project stage, we keep our eye on the prize—valuable, stunning, high-performing places that start strong and grow better over time.

SWA operates across eight studio-based offices with 250 talented team members. We are led by an Executive Committee and managed by two Co-CEOs and a CFO, with each studio overseen by a Managing Principal. Our projects are principal-led, with involvement from inception to completion.

TRAMUTOLA | Tax Bond Strategy
About Tramutola LLC Established over thirty years ago to help public entities plan for and pass bond and parcel tax measures, Tramutola is regarded as the premier tax election strategist in the state. We provide specialized advice related to tax election feasibility, timing and sequencing of elections, planning, and communications that build community support. Tramutola has helped public agencies of all sizes and demographic profiles pass local revenue measures, some, multiple times. We are known for our effective strategies, grassroots approach to community outreach, and most importantly, thoughtful and candid political advice.

Tramutola has worked collaboratively with our clients to plan for and win over 400 local tax elections in California that have produced well over $50 billion in new revenue for community facilities (schools, hospitals, recreation centers, senior centers, services, and programs).

As a small firm, we intentionally limit the number of clients we accept, as we recognize that each client has unique challenges. We have learned that success, especially when super majority votes are required, demands individualized attention and often training of local citizens. The strategies Tramutola develops are always customized to meet each clients’ unique needs. We are adept at navigating complex scenarios or the presence of organized opposition. We think strategically and encourage public entities to take a long-term view of success. As a result, most of our clients are repeat clients who desire our specialized approach.

HAYAT BROWN | Financing Strategy
Hayat Brown is a national engineering, advisory and development firm that helps mission-oriented institutions advance objectives related to the management of their infrastructure and real estate assets. The firm offers a full suite of public-private partnership advisory services to support the analysis, execution, and delivery of complex real estate and infrastructure projects.

Whether delivering a new capital improvement project, adaptively reusing an existing facility, monetizing or recycling an underutilized asset, or revitalizing an under-served community, our experts help clients analyze, evaluate, structure, and execute transactions from concept and valuation through procurement and negotiation.

Our professionals craft single asset or portfolio-wide real estate repositioning strategies that are not just aspirational but executable and underpinned by rigorous market and financial feasibility analyses.

City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 6

7.3 p. 57 of 168
Our experts understand the criticality of strong program and asset management during operations to monitor performance, address challenges, and leverage opportunities. We can assist with cash flow analyses, conduct financial and transaction restructuring, and provide expert witness support.

HEXAGON | Traffic Consulting
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. was founded in 1998 in San Jose, California with the goal of providing quality, professional transportation consulting services to private and public entities.

Hexagon provides services in all major aspects of transportation planning and traffic engineering.

Hexagon has completed transportation analysis for various projects throughout Gilroy since the early 2000s. With the opening of our Gilroy office in 2005, Hexagon has completed over 100 transportation studies for private developments as well as public projects in Gilroy, ranging from small to major land development projects to specific area plans, interchange studies, new roadway connections, and the completion of the traffic impact analysis for the 2040 General Plan, adopted in November 2020. We have completed design work for numerous projects in Gilroy, including traffic signal improvements at five locations, about three miles of new bike lane striping, a button-activated flashing beacon crosswalk system, school crosswalk improvements at 15 different locations, school zone flashing beacon systems at eight different schools, and new ADA curb ramps at 16 intersections in school zone areas.

BKF ENGINEERS | Civil Engineering & Land Survey
BKF provides civil engineering, land surveying, land planning services, and funding resources for government agencies, institutions, developers, design professionals, contractors, school districts, and corporations. BKF’s decades of engineering, surveying, and planning experience is evident in our legacy projects throughout the West Coast. By leveraging our diverse project portfolio in combination with innovative design solutions, BKF’s team of more than 500 experienced staff is dedicated to successfully delivering sustainable and dynamic projects for our communities and partners.

BKF offers experienced and available team members who work seamlessly with large and small Municipal Public Works departments.

Our extensive knowledge encompasses a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the various services, infrastructure, and development needs that communities require. Relevant experience includes:

Downtown Monterey Road Rehabilitation and Eigleberry & 7th Parking Lot in Gilroy; civic center master plans for Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara County, and Foster City; Los Altos Community Center Master Plan; San Bruno Master Plan; Brentwood Innovation Center Master Plan with ELS; and Terra Linda Park & Community Center Master Plan in San Rafael.

BRIGHTWORKS | LEED Consulting
Founded in 2001, the same year as the launch of the LEED green building rating system, Brightworks Sustainability has since maintained a position of leadership in the sustainable design, construction, operation, and maintenance of real estate assets. Brightworks is recognized as a LEED Proven Provider by the U.S. Green Building Council, and the firm routinely navigates complex LEED certification management scopes for municipal clients throughout California and beyond. Brightworks has 57 staff, more than 20 of which operate as broad-based sustainability project managers to manage LEED, as well as other green building programs.

Brightworks offers deep experience and time-tested approaches to leading project teams through a certification process. In our 23- year history, we have managed the successful certification of over 600 LEED projects. Our clients appreciate our approach to leading teams to set clear goals, identifying practical strategies to achieve them, and providing the content-expertise and project management follow-through needed to support and document those strategies and achieve successful certification. Our approach has proven successful for public clients especially, who are frequently charged with setting a positive example for their citizens on tight budgets. Having an experienced green building consulting partner is key to managing risk and uncertainty, as rating systems like LEED continue to raise the bar for sustainability performance.

PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE | Historic Resources
Mark Hulbert is the sole proprietor of his firm, Preservation Architecture. He brings extensive experience in the planning, design, evaluation and interpretation of architectural, historical, and cultural resources. As a registered architect and a certified architectural conservator with a career-long dedication to existing and historic buildings, he provides detailed and hands-on direction and assistance to building rehabilitation and preservation efforts. He focuses on delivering an independent and distinctly balanced approach to the complex issues surrounding existing and historic sites and buildings. He has been based in Oakland since 2002, with projects throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. His professional qualifications exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the fields of Historic Architecture, Architecture and Architectural History, and he is listed by the State of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as a qualified historical architect and historic preservation consultant. Mark holds a Certificate in Architectural Conservation from UNESCO’s International Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, Italy. He has been a California-registered architect since 1989.

FORELL/ELSESSER | Structural Engineering
Established in 1960, Forell Elsesser Structural Engineers (F/E) is one of the most active structural and earthquake engineering firms in the Western U.S., known for providing innovative, customized solutions across all product types. F/E was a pioneer in seismic base isolation systems now common today and is a leader implementing new strategies such as buckling restrained-braced frames, passive damped systems, and mass timber as a structural and aesthetic design solution.

F/E is committed to building stronger, more resilient communities through sustainable and innovative structural design. F/E focuses on creating safe, long-lasting structures that enhance the well-being of people they serve. By integrating advanced seismic technologies and pioneering new ideas, we ensure that our designs contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the communities we work with, making a lasting positive impact.

GUTTMANN & BLAEVOET | MEP ENGINEERING
Guttmann & Blaevoet has provided continuous engineering services to architects and building owners for over 60 years. Our team of 42 consists of licensed and certified mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers, lighting designers, low voltage experts, controls specialists, energy/carbon analysts, and commissioning providers.

Guttmann & Blaevoet has completed 100+ facility assessments, master plans, and design for cities, counties, and other public agencies for a wide variety of program spaces, including administration offices, essential services, public safety buildings, health and wellness centers, libraries, community centers, as well as recreation facilities and parks.

The proposed team consists of Mechanical Engineer, Gurdaver Singh, PE, LEED AP, who has 30+ years of experience in HVAC, plumbing, and fire protection systems, and Electrical Engineer, Mark Brown, PE, who has 25 years of industry experience in power, lighting, low voltage, and fire alarm systems.

CUMMING | Cost Estimating
Cumming Management Group, Inc. (Cumming Group) is a privately held corporation founded in California in 1996. Cumming Group is a leader in providing project consulting services to the A/E/C industry, including cost and project management, planning and scheduling, and construction dispute resolution. Cumming Group has grown to more than 2,000 team members within 50+ offices globally—including many City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 7

7.3 p. 58 of 168
of the brightest minds in the industry. Cumming Group is passionate about helping its clients execute large scale, complex projects ontime and within budget. Services are specifically tailored to each client’s needs and add meaningful value at every step of a project’s development. Drawing on deep expertise in the communities and sectors they serve, Cumming Group anticipates and solves problems, delivers solutions, and drives results.

For this project, Cumming Group will serve as cost consultant.

Cumming Group’s cost team is one of the largest providers of cost estimating and management services in the U.S., including a skilled team of in-house MEP cost specialists. Cumming Group works on more than 400 estimates each month, delivering unparalleled experience in this discipline. Core cost management services include budgeting, milestone cost estimating, value analysis, cost validation, peer review, and change order evaluation. Cumming Group has completed more than 2,100 projects for city- and county-operated facilities. These projects have involved parks, public spaces, city halls, civic centers, police/fire facilities, libraries, offices, community centers, animal shelters, transit centers, operations and maintenance facilities, and public works, among others.

CALIFORNIA CONSULTING | Grant Writing
California Consulting a full-service grant writing firm has offices in Central and Southern California. Our team has experts in the fields of grant research and identification, preparing comprehensive and concise grant application packages, submitting grants, and post submission follow-up.

With over 200 years of cumulative experience our assertive grant writers have a proven track record of success and have mastered their skills of identifying, researching, and obtaining funding for significant projects at every level of government. Our grant writers are diligent and stay current on every Federal, State, and private grant available on a myriad of different topics and public policy areas. Our team has written over 1000 competitive successful grant applications that have been awarded.

Cañada College Kinesiology & Wellness Building
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 8

7.3 p. 59 of 168
ELS

ORGANIZATION
Gerald Navarro
AIA
Director of Operations
and CFO
Principal
Kim-Van Truong
AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Assoc DBIA
Principal
Diana Banh
Director of Marketing
and Communications
Jeffrey Zieba
AIA, CASp, LEED AP
Resource Principal
Principal
Clarence D. Mamuyac, Jr.

FAIA, LEED AP BD+C
President/CEO
David Masenten
AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Director of
Mixed-Use Practice
Principal
William Gordon
AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Director of Interior
Architecture
Principal
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: FIRM GOVERNANCE
Christopher Jung
Assoc. AIA, LEED AP
Design Director
Associate Principal
Kenneth M. Loretto
AIA, LEED Green Associate
Design Director
Associate Principal
Lauren Wynveen
AIA
Urban Designer
Associate Principal
Kenneth Hasegawa
AIA
Principal Designer
Principal
Antonia Bowman
AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Assoc DBIA
Construction Administration
Specialist
Senior Associate
Susan Vutz

AIA, LEED AP, DBIA
Project Manager
Associate Principal

PRINCIPALS AND ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS
Cheri Lafontaine
Director of
Administration

DIRECTORS
Tracy Chan
Assoc. AIA
BIM Resource and
Computational Design
Leader
Senior Associate
Dana Vollmer-Grant
Assoc. AIA, WELL AP, CBSM
5x Olympic Gold Medalist
Wellness and Recreation
Programming Leader
Associate
Jose Rodriguez
Assoc. AIA
Visualization Designer and
Spanish Outreach Specialist
Designer
Beckie Denio

AIA, LEED AP
Project Manager
Senior Associate
Dana Bazzi
Project Manager
Senior Associate
Marc A. Chu
Architect, LEED AP
Construction Administration
Specialist
Senior Associate

SPECIALISTS
please see elsarch.com/people for full staff list
Anthony Grand
AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Design Director
Associate Principal

7.3 p. 60 of 168
Santa Ana Memorial Park Master Plan | Santa Ana, CA
+ company and project 2 team qualifications

7.3 p. 61 of 168
#+ tab title
Millbrae Recreation Center Project Name | Millbrae, CA | City,ST 2a + qualifications and related experience
of personnel who will perform work

7.3 p. 62 of 168
Cost Estimating
Nick Mata, CPE
Cumming Group
MEP
Gurdaver Singh, PE, LEED AP
Guttmann & Blaevoet
Landscape Architecture
Marco Esposito, RLA
SWA Group
Historic Preservation
Mark Hulbert
Preservation Architecture
LEED
Lauren Fakhoury, LEED AP
BD+C, LEED AP O+M
Brightworks Sustainability
Structural Engineering
Allen Nudel, SE, DBIA
Forelll Elsesslor
Civil
Eric Girod, PE, LEED AP
BKF
Tax Bond Strategy
Larry Tramutola
Tramutola Consulting
Environmental/CEQA
Teri Wissler Adam
EMC

CONSULTANTS
ELS FIRM DIVERSITY + JUST ORGANIZATION
ELS is a minority-owned business, and our ownership includes both minority and women partners as well as management at senior levels. ELS is the very fi rst organization in California to be named a JUST 2.0 organization by the International Living Future Institute; the JUST label represents our commitment to social equity, transparency, and diversity in our practice. With our diverse staff of designers, we are committed to diversity in our business practices particularly as it refl ects the communities that we serve.

Kenneth Hasegawa
AIA
Design
Principal
ELS
80%
Clarence D. Mamuyac, Jr.

FAIA, LEED AP BD+C
Principal for
Sports & Rec
ELS
50%
Teri Wissler Adam
Environmental Consultant
EMC
80%
Larry Tramutola
Lead Tax Bond Strategist
Tramutola Consulting
75%
Lauren Wynveen
AIA
Urban
Designer
ELS
100%
Dana Vollmer-Grant
Assoc. AIA, WELL AP, CBSM
Sports, Rec & WELL Programmer/
Comm. Outreach Specialist
ELS
75%
City of Gilroy
David Masenten
AIA, LEED AP BD+C
Principal-in-Charge/PM
ELS
80%
Financing Strategy
Jenifer Boss
Hayat Brown
Traffi c
Jeffrey A. Elia, P.E.

Hexagon Transportation
Consultants
Grant Writing
David Marquez
California Consulting
Susan Vutz

AIA, LEED AP, DBIA
Project
Architect
ELS
75%
Marco Esposito

PLA, ASLA
Principal Landscape Architect
SWA
75%
Jose Rodriguez
Assoc. AIA
Designer/Spanish Language
Outreach Specialist
ELS
80%
Project Team Organizational Chart

7.3 p. 63 of 168
Kenneth Hasegawa, AIA, NCARB

DESIGN PRINCIPAL
Kenneth is a Principal at ELS and returned to the fi rm in 2023, working with the fi rm’s leadership and talent to broaden the fi rm’s coverage on California assignments and add to the fi rm’s design voice and dialogue.

Kenneth is an architect with a multifaceted approach to form and place — one that balances the unique qualities of each project’s context with simple and elegant design solutions. He fi rst joined ELS in 2012, and collaborated on the fi rm’s notable projects such as the UC Berkeley Legends Aquatic Center, USC Uytengsu Aquatics Center, and Hillsdale Shopping Center. He is now leading two aquatic center designs: a $22MM project for the City of Santa Ana and concepts for a $30MM project for the City of Alameda.

Before rejoining ELS, he helped shape prominent cultural, multi-use and residential projects at Michael Maltzan Architecture in Los Angeles; Kengo Kuma & Associates in Tokyo; and PARA Project in New York.

EDUCATION
Master of Architecture
with Distinction, Harvard
Graduate School of Design
Bachelor of Arts in
Architecture with Highest
Honors, UC Berkeley
College of Environmental
Design

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect License C
40341

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Araldo A. Cossutta Prize
for Design Excellence,
2018, Harvard Graduate
School of Design

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
80%
David Masenten, AIA, LEED AP BD+C

PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE/PROJECT MANAGER
David is a Principal at ELS and has extensive experience designing large, multi-use projects that incorporate the best green practices. David manages the on-call contracts for the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, Millbrae, Hollister and Hercules in California, as well as San Mateo County in California, which have included a wide range of projects including new community and recreation centers, historic renovations, fi re station remodels, emergency housing, parking structures, urban design/planning, parks and open space and safety improvements. His additional project experience includes high-rise commercial and residential buildings, large-scale urban master planning and urban design, town planning, commercial tenant fi t-out for national retailers, and corporate interiors for international companies. David has worked on numerous complex projects that involve lengthy and challenging approvals requiring political outreach and public sensitivity. He has also worked strategically with developers to create economic strategies for long-term planning scenarios.

EDUCATION
Masters in City Planning,
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
BFA, B.Arch, Rhode Island
School of Design

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect C 29921

AFFILIATIONS

MEMBER, SPUR
Member, ICSC

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
80%
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 13

7.3 p. 64 of 168
Lauren Wynveen, AIA

URBAN DESIGNER
Lauren is an Associate Principal at ELS. Since joining ELS in 2013, Lauren has led project teams on a variety of projects, including civic, educational, historic, mixed-use, planning, and retail centers, and has experience in residential building design as well. Lauren strongly believes that good, thoughtful design can substantially improve the environment.

Lauren is an accomplished designer who considers her client fi rst, listening carefully to their voice and values. She then synthesizes the information quickly into plan options and 3D visualizations for client review and input. Lauren works at many phases of the design process, including feasibility studies and master planning, bringing her creative talents in both conceptual and technical phases to a variety of projects. Lauren was an integral designer on the new mixed use and residential development designed for the University of Indiana at Bloomington, leading community workshops and production of drawings.

As lead designer for the renovation of Lisser Hall at Mills College, Lauren developed the design for the new outdoor deck/event space and facilitated the creek permit approval process with the city of Oakland. She was also responsible for the successful and invisible integration of new building systems into the structure’s historic fabric.

EDUCATION
B.Arch with Highest
Distinction, UC Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect C 36356

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
TAP & Leadership
Scholarship Application
Evaluator, UC Berkeley
Alumni Association,
2015-Present
Habitat Restoration,
HandsOn Bay Area,
2018-Present
Home Tour Docent, AIA
East Bay, 2013-Present
Mentor, Fam1st
Architecture Summer
Camp, 2018-2019
Home Tour Docent,
AIA San Francisco,
2015-Present

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
100%
Clarence D. Mamuyac, Jr., FAIA, LEED AP BD+C, NCARB

PRINCIPAL FOR SPORTS AND RECREATION
Clarence D. Mamuyac, Jr. serves as President/CEO of ELS. He joined ELS in 1983 and brings over 35 years of experience in community, recreation, sports, aquatics, and education projects to his assignments. Clarence is a national leader in sports and recreation design, and he has a strong interest in assisting and guiding complex client groups through a process of workshops and engagement that helps them achieve clear direction and decision-making power through a transparent, consensus-based building process. Clarence’s portfolio includes award-winning community design projects for dozens of municipalities throughout Northern California including Millbrae, Redwood City, Mountain View, Elk Grove, Oakland, Santa Clara, Morgan Hill, and Fremont, as well as venues for some of the best known schools in the PAC 12 conference—UC Berkeley, Stanford University, and USC.

As President/CEO, Clarence has led ELS to a consistent presence over the past several years among the Architect 50, which ranks the nation’s top fi rms for Design, Sustainability and Business. His work has been published in Architectural Record, Progressive Architecture, and Architect, and his projects have been honored by the AIA, Athletic Business, and CPRS.

EDUCATION
M.Arch with Distinction,
UC Berkeley
B.A. in Architecture and
Landscape Architecture,
UC Berkeley
First Prize, Thomas
D. Church Design
Competition, UC Berkeley
CED

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect C 19182
CA Landscape Architect
3617

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Chair, Dean’s Advisory
Council, UC Berkeley CED
Fellow, AIA
John S. Bolles, FAIA Fellow,
AIA California
AIA California Council,
Director, 2002 - 2003;
Urban Design Committee,
2004 - 2005; Monterey
Design Conference
Committee, 2004 - 2005
AIA East Bay, President,
2003; Director, 2000-2003

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
50%
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 14

7.3 p. 65 of 168
Dana Vollmer-Grant, Assoc. AIA, WELL AP, CBSM,
5x Olympic Gold Medalist

SPORTS, RECREATION, AND WELL PROGRAMMER, COMMUNITY

OUTREACH SPECIALIST
Dana Vollmer-Grant is an Associate at ELS and a Programming Specialist for our sports and recreation projects. She brings a wealth of relevant experience as one of the most gold-medaled female USA Olympians of all time, with fi ve Olympic gold medals. She is currently ranked fourth.

At ELS, Dana works with clients on design ideas to fi t their specifi c athletic programming needs. She draws on her sports background in swimming, basketball, and volleyball to work through diagrams that optimize space, pedestrian traffi c, and usability while incorporating the lesser-known traits that make a facility favored by competitors of any caliber.

As a mother, she also has user insight into design practices that help sports camps, youth lessons, and programming features cover the widest possible programming spectrum.

Dana’s Olympic career began in 2004 at the Athens Olympics, where she won gold as part of the world record-setting 4x200-meter freestyle relay. In 2012 she won three gold medals while setting two world records at the London Olympics. After having her fi rst child in 2015, Dana returned to the pool and quickly regained her place among the top swimmers in the world. At the 2016 Olympics in Rio, she won bronze in the 100-meter butterfl y, silver and an American Record in the 4x100-meter freestyle relay, and gold in the 4x100-meter medley relay. Her gold in the 2016 Olympics is the USA Swimming’s fi rst ever gold medal won by a mother.

As a WELL-accredited professional, she draws on her training in WELL Building strategies and Community-Based Social Marketing to ensure that each space designed by ELS is able to inspire and ensure repeated visits over many years while optimizing occupant health.

EDUCATION
B.A. in Anthropology, UC
Berkeley

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
3x Olympian representing
the United States (2004,
2012, 2016)
7x Olympic medalist: 5
gold, 1 silver, and 1 bronze
35 international medals
Competed in 100+
different aquatics facilities
in 17 different countries
Speaker & Workshop
Facilitator developing
athletes’ sense of self to
embrace uniqueness, build
confi dence, and reach
goals on their own terms.

Keynote speaker at the
WELL Conference | 2024
Keynote speaker at the
CW3 Confi dence Summit
| 2021
Keynote speaker at
the WIN (Women in
Negotiation) Summit |
2020

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
75%
Susan Vutz, AIA, LEED AP, DBIA

PROJECT ARCHITECT
Susan is an Associate Principal at ELS. She joined the fi rm in 2015 and is skilled in all project phases, from site feasibility and green building practices to design, entitlements, construction documents, and construction administration. Her ability to understand complex project requirements and knowledge of sustainable construction practices makes her a key member of every team.

Susan was the project manager for the Kinesiology & Wellness Center at Cañada College for the San Mateo County Community College District. For this complex structure, she completed an extensive DSA review including multiple meetings with DSA and their third-party reviewer, routinely leading design review meetings for up to 20 consultants and clients.

As an adjunct faculty member at Diablo Valley College in the Contra Costa Community College District, Susan has taught classes in construction detailing and materials, working drawings, and green buildings.

EDUCATION
M.Arch, UC Berkeley
B.S. in Architecture, Cal
Poly San Luis Obispo

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect C 16975

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
DBIA Member, with
Certifi cation
Adjunct Faculty Member,
Diablo Valley College

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
75%
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 15

7.3 p. 66 of 168
Teri Wissler Adam

SENIOR PRINCIPAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
A Senior Principal at EMC Planning Group, Teri Wissler Adam joined the fi rm in 1991.

Her area of expertise is in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance.

Teri directs the CEQA and NEPA compliance projects for the fi rm. She has been responsible for a large variety of private projects, including residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and large specifi c plan and general plan projects. She has also managed several projects for public facilities, such as recycled water projects, roadway projects, bikeway projects, bridge projects, elementary schools, high schools, and college campuses, and other public facilities, such as health clinics, landfi lls, child development centers, and federal research facilities. She has represented public clients throughout Monterey County, San Benito County, Santa Clara County, Merced County, San Luis Obispo County, San Mateo County, Santa Cruz County, and as far south as Los Angeles County.

EDUCATION
B.S. California Polytechnic
State University at San
Luis Obispo, Business
Administration,
Concentration
in Environmental
Management, 1991

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Member, Association
of Environmental
Professionals
Presenter, CEQA Seminar,
Lorman Education Services
Presenter, CEQA
Workshop, Association
of Environmental
Professionals
Contributor, Environmental
Mitigation Handbook,
California’s Coalition for
Adequate School Housing,
February 2009
Past Director/President/
Newsletter Editor,
Monterey Bay Area
Chapter, Association
of Environmental
Professionals

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
80%
Jose Rodriguez, Assoc. AIA

DESIGNER, SPANISH LANGUAGE OUTREACH SPECIALIST
Jose joined ELS in 2021 as a Designer. He has worked on a variety of projects including the South Oxnard Aquatics Center, the South San Francisco Orange Park Aquatics Center, the East Los Angeles Community College Aquatic Center Concept, and the Foster City Recreation Community Facility Concept. Jose’s graphic communication skills include creating professional renderings, 3D models, inspiration boards, and visual communication diagrams. He uses Revit and the Adobe suite in his support of the marketing team on project pursuits. He also draws on his fl uency in Spanish to communicate effectively with a wider audience. He has been a key member on the South Oxnard aquatic center project, where he is responsible for all Spanish communications with the community.

EDUCATION
B.Arch, University of
California, Berkeley

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
The Achievement
Award Program (TAAP)
Scholarship (Awarded by
UC Berkeley)
Hispanic Scholarship Fund
Scholarship (Awarded by
The Hispanic Scholarship
Fund)

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
80%
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 16

7.3 p. 67 of 168
Stuart Poulter, AICP, MCRP

SENIOR PLANNER, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
Stuart Poulter, a Senior Planner at EMC Planning Group, joined the fi rm in 2015. As a Senior Planner, his responsibilities include project management and preparation of environmental review documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with a primary interest and project experience in addressing impacts associated with wildfi re hazards, historical (built) resources, and visual/scenic resources.

Stuart has demonstrated experience across a range of project types including recreation facilities, school sites, residential development, transportation facilities, coastal development/infrastructure, and commercial/ tourism development.

In addition to his environmental work, Stuart provides staff support services to various municipal planning departments, including the cities of Gilroy, Carmel-by-the-Sea, and Sand City. Processing development applications includes plan review and comments to the applicant, preparation of staff reports, fi ndings, and resolutions, and presentations at public hearing. Additionally, he provides private clients with permit processing and entitlement assistance, constraints analyses, land use assessments, and feasibility analyses.

Prior to joining the fi rm and while completing his graduate degree in City and Regional Planning at Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo, Stuart worked as an environmental planning intern/technician in the private sector where he was responsible for the preparation of environmental documents in compliance with CEQA/NEPA and the preparation of permit application packages for various coastal and inland projects.

EDUCATION
M.C.R.P. California
Polytechnic State
University-San Luis Obispo,
City and Regional Planning
Program, Environmental
Planning Concentration,
2015
B.A. Santa Clara University,
History, 2008

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Member, Association
of Environmental
Professionals (AEP),
2014-Present; Monterey
Bay-Silicon Valley Chapter
Board of Directors,
Secretary (2017-2019);
Member-at-Large
(2024-Present)
Member, American
Planning Association
(APA), California Chapter,
2014-Present
Award, Town of Corte
Madera 6th Cycle
(2023-2031) Housing
Element Update
Subsequent EIR, Award
of Merit (Outstanding
Environmental Analysis
Document), 2024 AEP
Awards
Ron Sissem, MRP

SENIOR PRINCIPAL, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
A Senior Principal at EMC Planning Group, Ron Sissem worked for the fi rm for three years writing environmental impact reports in the 1980s before taking on international assignments with USAID and the World Bank. His international experience includes national resource and protected area management in Mongolia, environmental auditing/ impact evaluation to address business development lending risks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, clean technology deployment in India to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental compliance for USAID-funded economic development projects.

In 2002, Ron returned to EMC Planning Group. His primary responsibilities are to manage large land planning and environmental review projects. He assists public agencies with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for diverse, complex projects; manages preparation of specifi c plans and general plans; and manages planning and entitlement processes for private clients.

Ron is the fi rm’s climate change/greenhouse gas emissions specialist. He manages climate change impact analyses for CEQA documents, consults local agencies on integrating climate planning strategies/policy/emission reduction measures into advanced planning documents (e.g. general plans and specifi c plans), and consults developers on climate change mitigation project design.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• NewPark Place Specifi c Plan and CEQA Compliance | City of Newark | Newark, CA* • Gilroy 2040 General Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report | Mintier Harnish | Gilroy, CA
• Gilroy Sports Park Ice Center IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Project Garlic Industrial Distribution Facility IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Gilroy Square Commercial Project IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Luchessa Avenue – Holloway Road Industrial Warehouse Project 15183 Consistency Analysis | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA
• 951 Renz Lane Industrial Warehouse 15183 Consistency Analysis | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA
• San Pablo City Hall Specifi c Plan Amendment and IS/MND | City of San Pablo | San Pablo, CA
• Ferrasci Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Salinas | Salinas, CA • Vista Lucia Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Gonzales | Gonzales, CA • Hecker Pass Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Walnut Avenue Commercial Area Specifi c Plan and EIR | City of Greenfi eld | Greenfi eld, CA
• North Monterey County High School Campus Improvements IS/MND | Lozano Smith | Salinas, CA
• Carmel High School Stadium Improvements EIR | Carmel Unifi ed School District | Unincorporated Monterey County, CA
• 110 Wood Road (Los Gatos Meadows) Senior Living Community EIR | Town of Los Gatos | Los Gatos, CA
• San Juan School Campus Reconstruction IS/MND | San Juan Aromas Unifi ed School District | San Juan Bautista, CA
*Project with ELS
[email protected]

EDUCATION
M.R.P. University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Urban and Regional
Planning, 1995
B.S. University of California
at Santa Barbara,
Geography, 1982
B.A. University of California
at Santa Barbara,
Environmental Studies,
1982

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Awards, City of Salinas
Economic Development
Element, 2014
• Outstanding Planning
Document-Association of
Environmental Professional
(2016)
• Economic Planning and
Development Award of
Excellence-American
Planning Association,
California Chapter,
Northern Section (2015)
• Economic Planning and
Development Award of
Merit-American Planning
Association California
Chapter (2015)
Presenter, Advanced CEQA
Workshop, Association
of Environmental
Professionals (2009, 2010,
2013)
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 17

7.3 p. 68 of 168
Zane Mortensen, MS

ASSOCIATE PLANNER, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
Zane Mortensen, an Associate Planner at EMC Planning Group, joined the fi rm in 2022 to provide support in the preparation of environmental planning and land use documents for a variety of development projects such as residential sites, schools, subdivisions, specifi c plans, hospitals, and recreational facilities. Primary responsibilities involve conducting air quality and greenhouse gas emissions modeling and analysis, as well as the preparation of environmental review documentation in compliance with CEQA/NEPA regulatory standards.

In May 2019, he was awarded a Master’s of Science degree from the Environmental Science Graduate Program at California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB). During his academic career, he developed a range of skills to apply to environmental issues within the community while working on projects for both State and County entities. He also had the opportunity to participate in research focused on the development of water treatment technology aimed at remediating agricultural pollutants from local tributaries.

Upon receiving his Master’s of Science degree in Environmental Science from CSUMB, Zane was hired by the Rural Community Assistance Corporation to facilitate planning efforts that supported drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure development for low-income rural communities. His role largely involved overseeing State funded consolidation efforts between small rural community water systems and larger local utility providers.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Ferrasci Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Salinas | Salinas, CA • Vista Lucia Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Gonzales | Gonzales, CA • San Juan School Campus Reconstruction IS/MND | San Juan Aromas Unifi ed School District | San Juan Bautista, CA
• Gilroy Sports Park Ice Center IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Gilroy Square Commercial Project IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • 951 Renz Lane Industrial Warehouse 15183 Consistency Analysis | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA
• North Monterey County High School Campus Improvements IS/MND | Lozano Smith | Salinas, CA
• Carmel High School Stadium Improvements EIR | Carmel Unifi ed School District | Unincorporated Monterey County, CA
• San Juan School Campus Reconstruction IS/MND | San Juan Aromas Unifi ed School District | San Juan Bautista, CA
• Meridian Village Residential Subdivision IS/MND | City of Hollister | Hollister, CA [email protected]

EDUCATION
M.S. California State
University Monterey Bay,
Environmental Science,
2019
B.S. California State
University Monterey Bay,
Environmental Science
Technology and Policy,
2017
A.S. Cerritos College,
Natural Sciences, 2015

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
UC San Diego CEQA
Practice Certifi cation,
current enrollment
Successful completion
Grade I Wastewater Plant
Operator Examination,
2014
Shoshana Lutz

SENIOR PLANNER, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT
Shoshana Lutz, an Senior Planner at EMC Planning Group, joined the fi rm in 2017 with the primary responsibility of writing and managing initial studies, environmental impact reports, and categorical exemptions in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Shoshana also prepares categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

She has experience across a range of project types including residential and commercial development, school sites, recreation facilities, and coastal development/infrastructure.

In addition to her environmental work, Shoshana provides private clients with permit processing and entitlement assistance as well as ongoing municipal planning assistance and representation at public meetings.

Prior to joining EMC Planning Group, Shoshana worked for the City of Carmel-by-theSea in the Community Planning and Building Department. Her responsibilities included assisting with preliminary plan check review for building and planning applications, conducting preliminary site assessments on residential properties, and conducting preliminary design reviews in residential and commercial areas.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Gilroy 2040 General Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report | Mintier Harnish | Gilroy, CA
• Project Garlic Industrial Distribution Facility IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Gilroy Square Commercial Project IS/MND | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA • Luchessa Avenue – Holloway Road Industrial Warehouse Project 15183 Consistency Analysis | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA
• 951 Renz Lane Industrial Warehouse 15183 Consistency Analysis | City of Gilroy | Gilroy, CA
• Gonzales Community Center Complex CEQA/NEPA Compliance | City of Gonzales | Gonzales, CA
• King City Downtown Addition Specifi c Plan Amendment and Supplemental EIR | Suzie Rava | King City, CA
• Ferrasci Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Salinas | Salinas, CA • Vista Lucia Specifi c Plan EIR | City of Gonzales | Gonzales, CA • San Juan School Campus Reconstruction IS/MND | San Juan Aromas Unifi ed School District | San Juan Bautista, CA
• Meridian Village Residential Subdivision IS/MND | City of Hollister | Hollister, CA [email protected]

EDUCATION
B.S. California State
University Monterey Bay,
Environmental Science
Technology and Policy,
Emphasis in Ecology and
Natural Resources, 2014

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Member, Association
of Environmental
Professionals
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 18

7.3 p. 69 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
B.A. in Political Science
with Distinction, Stanford
University

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
75%
Larry Tramutola

LEAD TAX BOND STRATEGIST
Larry Tramutola is recognized as one of the country’s top strategists in community engagement, political strategy, and passing diffi cult tax measures. He is President/CEO of Tramutola. Larry has written three books on organizing and tax elections, including Sidewalk Strategies: A Practical Guide for Candidates, Causes, and Communities. Larry is the founder of The Organizing and Leadership Academy whose mission is to train the next generation of organizers and leaders.

Now regarded as the premier tax election strategist in the state, Larry Tramutola established the fi rm 37 years ago to help public entities plan for and pass bond and parcel tax measures. He and his colleagues provide specialized advice related to tax election feasibility, timing and sequencing of elections, planning, and communications that build community support. Tramutola has helped public agencies of all sizes and demographic profi les pass local revenue measures (some, multiple times). Tramutola is known for effective strategies, a grassroots approach to community outreach, and most importantly, thoughtful and candid political advice. Tramutola has worked collaboratively with our clients to plan for and win over 400 local tax elections in California that have produced well over $50 billion in new revenue for community facilities (schools, hospitals, recreation centers, senior centers, services, and programs).
[email protected]

EDUCATION
B.A. in Political Science,
CSU Chico
Masters in Public Policy,
UC Berkeley Goldman
School
Christian Garcia

POLITICAL STRATEGIST
Christian Garcia works with a broad range of clients, including school districts, cities, candidates, statewide propositions, and community health issues. Working closely with Larry Tramutola, he provides daily direction, training, and strategic advice on voter engagement and community outreach to clients. As a fl uent Spanish speaker, he believes in training community members who don’t typically engage in the political process in their community.
[email protected]

EDUCATION
BA Landscape
Architecture, with High
Honors, University of
California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Landscape Architect
#2908

AFFILIATIONS
Member, Urban Land
Institute
Member, American Society
of Landscape Architects
Member, San Francisco
Planning and Urban
Research Association

TIME DEVOTED TO

PROJECT
75%
Marco Esposito, RLA

PRINCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Marco Esposito is a Principal focused on creating vibrant, iconic, and walkable outdoor places. His four decades of experience include leading multi-disciplinary teams on largescale master planning and civic projects and collaborating with architects and engineers on projects of all sizes. His project portfolio features many successful collaborations with ELS.

7.3 p. 70 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Masters of Business
Administration, The
Wharton School
B.B.A. Finance, Howard
University

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Urban Land Institute,
DC Women’s Leadership
Initiative Steering
Committee
Equitable Development
Initiative, African American
Real Estate Professionals

CERTIFICATIONS
Real Estate Broker
DC: SP98377043
MD: 655407
Daughan Pitts

PROJECT MANAGER FOR FINANCING STRATEGY
Daughan Pitts, a Project Manager at Hayat Brown, specializes in fi nancial analysis and program management. She has served as the project manager for P3 projects representing more than $2.5 billion in development. Daughan has provided project and program management, as well as transaction support from feasibility analysis and presolicitation through post-closing asset management to a variety of public and private sector clients including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the FDIC. Prior to joining Hayat Brown Daughan worked at JLL in a variety of advisory roles providing clients with fi nancial analysis, asset management and transaction support services.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Jefferson County, AL | Daughan served as the project lead to the County as it engaged with a private partner to redevelop a 40+ acre hospital campus into a large mixed-use development. Daughan analyzed and evaluated the County’s fi nancing requirements and provided additional fi nancial analysis, transaction structuring expertise and negotiations support.
• DC Offi ce of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development: Project Good Hope | Daughan is leading the Hayat Brown team supporting DMPED by providing market analysis and fi nancial modeling to evaluate the feasibility of a potential stadium-anchored development on the land currently occupied by the disused RFK Stadium and the surrounding federal lands. The District of Columbia anticipates acquiring these lands from the federal government in the near future. • City of Austin, TX: P3 Advisory | Daughan has supported Austin Economic Development Corporation in redeveloping two city owned sites. She is advising on creative fi nancing mechanisms that will allow the redevelopment of the South Central Waterfront site. She is also assisting with the fi nancial and feasibility analysis of potential uses on the Convention Center site, creating a development program to accommodate the city’s goals with an emphasis on emphasis on affordability and equity.
• California State University, Long Beach, CA | Daughan led an engagement evaluating the feasibility of the University’s capital program. In this engagement, Daughan provided pro forma review as well as scenario and feasibility analysis. Additionally, Daughan developed the analysis used by CSULB to gain approval to issue bonds for the renovation of the Los Alamitos and Los Cerritos residence Halls. • Howard University, Washington, DC | Daughan has provided fi nancial analysis support to Howard University’s Offi ce of Real Estate Development and Capital Asset Management. She is currently supporting negotiations on a 450,000+ SF mixeduse urban development and supporting the negotiation of a 250-unit multifamily monetization project.

Capability Statement
April 2024
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Urban Planning,
University of Michigan
Bachelor of Arts, St. Xavier
University

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Urban Land Institute (ULI)
Project Management
Institute

CERTIFICATIONS
PMP
Six Sigma
CCIM
Series 50 & 54 – Municipal
Advisor
Jenifer Boss

SENIOR FINANCING STRATEGIST
Jenifer Boss, a Managing Director at Hayat Brown, is an expert in P3 program development, transaction structuring, and project management. With over 15 years of public sector and advisory experience for universities and all levels of government, she specializes in project selection and delivery, capturing value, partner selection, and risk allocation strategies. Jenifer has served as the project manager for several relevant real estate and P3 engagements, including at Dartmouth College, Howard and Carlow Universities as well as mixed-use developments in Travis County, TX and Falls Church, VA.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• The City of Pfl ugerville, TX: Downtown East Civic Center Development | Jennifer is currently providing transaction structure support for the development of a Civic Center that includes a city hall, recreation center and mixed-use development across 29 acres to support a rapidly expanding population. Work includes risk analysis, delivery options analysis, fi nancial feasibility analysis, developer proposal evaluation, and transaction negotiation support.
• City of Falls Church, VA: City Gateway Commercial Redevelopment | Jennifer advised the City on a $350 million commercial development on a city-owned, 10-acre parcel adjacent to its middle and high school education campus to offset the $120 million cost of constructing a new high school. She provided market research, fi nancial analysis, strategic planning, negotiation support, and P3 delivery method analysis. • Travis County, TX: Courthouse P3 and Mixed-Use Development | As project manager, Jennifer advised Travis County for the monetization of a County-owned parcel in downtown Austin under a long-term ground lease to offset the cost of constructing a new $330 million Civil and Family Courthouse. She crafted a solicitation for the development, drafted RFP evaluation criteria, evaluated fi nancial elements of proposals, and crafted and delivered executive briefi ngs and recommendations. She is now supporting the construction monitoring of the courthouse. • St. Louis County, MO: Administrative Facility Development | As St. Louis County Government explores real estate options to upgrade or replace aging facilities in Clayton, Jennifer is supporting market and land value analyses, site identifi cation, and fi nancial and feasibility studies.

Capability Statement
April 2024
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 20

7.3 p. 71 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
B.S., Civil Engineering,
Santa Clara University

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Civil Engineer,
CA No. 59903

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
LEED Accredited
Professional
U.S. Green Building Council
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Eric Girod, PE, LEED AP

PRINCIPAL, CIVIL ENGINEERING
A Principal at BKF, Eric follows a management approach that is grounded in clear communication and hands-on involvement. He strives to gain a thorough understanding of a project’s needs and goals from the onset, which frames the process for delivering projects. Combining these objectives with the specifi c project issues, constraints, and opportunities, Eric forms a work plan to guide the design effort. He coordinates this work plan with other consultants, agencies, and special interests to provide a systematic design solution. With a critical eye on scope, schedule, and budget, Eric manages his projects to meet his clients’ goals and expectations.

Eric has successfully managed a comprehensive portfolio of land development projects that range from large master planned mixed-use redevelopment, to regional infrastructure, to single-family residential. By emphasizing urban in-fi ll, transit-oriented development, and redevelopment projects, Eric promotes sustainable design

PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE, TRAFFIC CONSULTANT
Jeffrey Elia is a Principal Associate. Since 1998, Jeffrey has worked on a variety of site traffi c analyses, traffi c engineering projects, signal design projects, signing and striping design projects, temporary traffi c control plans, and transportation planning projects.

He also spent 14 months working for the City of San Mateo Public Works Department as a contract employee, which involved a variety of traffi c engineering issues, such as traffi c control warrant analyses, investigating reports of unsafe intersections, drafting and assisting with new City transportation policies, reviewing traffi c engineering reports, implementing traffi c calming measures, overseeing grant projects and working with the City’s traffi c consultants. Jeffrey currently manages Hexagon’s design practice and supervises the majority of design work conducted by the company. Jeffrey has a proven track record of effectively managing projects of all sizes and completing them on schedule and in a way that meets or exceeds client expectations.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering [Cum-Laude],
San Jose State University

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Registered Professional
Engineer in the State of
California (68719)

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Member, Institute of
Transportation Engineers
Member, American Society
of Civil Engineers
Charter Member,
Transportation and
Development Institute of
ASCE
“Using Video Data to
Measure Vehicle Operating
Modes for Prediction of
Emissions”, Transportation
Research Record 1664,
September 1999. (Coauthor)
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 21

7.3 p. 72 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master of Science in
Construction Management,
Washington University in
St. Louis
Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering, Washington
University in St. Louis

PROFESSIONAL

ACCREDITATIONS
LEED AP BD+C
LEED AP O+M
MyGreenLab Assessor
Fitwel Ambassador
Parksmart Advisor

AFFILIATIONS
LEED Location and Planning
Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) Member
Lauren Fakhoury, LEED AP BD+C, LEED AP O+M

SUSTAINABLE HEALTHY BUILDINGS PRACTICE LEAD, LEED CONSULTANT Drawing on more than a decade in the green building industry, Lauren Fakhoury consistently guides project teams to successfully achieve their sustainability goals and distinguish themselves in the competitive landscape of Bay Area real estate. As Sustainable Healthy Buildings Lead, she frequently manages aggressive sustainability programs for technology companies, governments, universities, and schools throughout the region. Lauren and the Brightworks team collaborate frequently with ELS Architects on local municipal work.

Before Brightworks, Lauren was a senior analyst in Accenture’s San Jose offi ce, focused on business and systems integration, energy, and smart buildings. She managed a team in creating a database of energy rebates, incentives, and commissioning programs and evaluated her client’s product information to validate alignment with LEED criteria. She also established the project management offi ce for a marketing transformation project, putting together a handbook for ongoing operations within the team.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• Fremont Civic Center Sustainability Plan - LEED Equivalency and Sustainable Master Planning Consultant | City of Fremont | Fremont, CA • Santa Ana Memorial Park Aquatic Center - LEED Feasibility Consultant | City of Santa Ana | Santa Ana, CA*
• Piedmont Community Pool - LEED Consultant | City of Piedmont | Piedmont, CA* • Rengstorff Park New Aquatic Center - LEED Consultant | City of Mountain View | Mountain View, CA*
• Mulford Library - LEED Consultant | City of San Leandro | San Leandro, CA • Richmond Library Historic Rehabilitation - LEED Consultant | City of Richmond | Richmond, CA
• Napa Civic Center Design - Sustainable Design Consultant | City of Napa | Napa, CA • Northside Branch Library - LEED Consultant | City of Santa Clara | Santa Clara, CA • Hillview Community Center Redevelopment - LEED Equivalency Consultant | City of Los Altos | Los Altos, CA
• Madera County Courthouse - LEED Consultant | California Courts (AOC) | Madera, CA
*Project with ELS
[email protected]

EDUCATION
B.S., Civil Engineering,
California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis
Obispo

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Professional Civil Engineer,
CA No. 77988
Qualifi ed SWPPP
Developer

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
LEED AP, U.S. Green
Building Council
Steven Reynolds, PE, LEED AP, QSD

SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, CIVIL ENGINEERING
With over 17 years of experience in the civil engineering industry, Steven is dedicated to enhancing communities through innovative park and recreation projects. As a Senior Project Manager, he brings expertise in planning, design, and execution, ensuring that every project meets the highest standards of quality and sustainability.

Steven has successfully led numerous park and recreation initiatives, ranging from urban park revitalizations and community center developments. He brings a deep understanding of the balance between environmental conservation, public engagement, and recreational functionality, allowing delivery of projects that not only meet client objectives but also enrich the lives of community members.

7.3 p. 73 of 168
Allen Nudel, SE, DBIA

PRINCIPAL, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Allen is a Principal at Forell Elsesser Engineers with 29 years of structural engineering experience, specializing in civic and community-focused projects. He excels in new construction, seismic retrofi ts, and historic renovations for public facilities, consistently optimizing structural materials and systems for effi ciency and performance. Known for his methodical approach, design creativity, and exceptional attention to detail, Allen ensures the production of well-coordinated contract documents.

Allen’s experience spans a variety of community projects, including collaborations with ELS on civic and aquatic facilities like the Piedmont Aquatic Center, Legends Aquatic Center at UC Berkeley, Cañada College Kinesiology & Wellness Center, College of Marin’s Miwok Campus Aquatic Facility, and the City of Millbrae’s new Recreation Center.

Currently, Allen serves as Project Principal for the South San Francisco Civic Campus, which includes the design and construction of three major buildings: an 80,000-sf Library/ Parks and Recreation Building with a City Council Chamber, a 45,000-sf Police Station, and a 9,000-sf Fire Station, all located on a 7.9-acre site. Allen is committed to enhancing the built environment for communities through resilient and innovative structural solutions.

As Principal in Charge, Allen will take a lead role in developing the project structural design criteria and obtaining structural design approval. Allen will also take responsibility for overall project quality control and delivery, as well as the administrative, fi nancial, contract, and production management for this project.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• City of South San Francisco Civic Campus | San Francisco, CA • City of South San Francisco Orange Memorial Park Aquatic Center | San Francisco, CA*
• City of Morgan Hill Public Library | Morgan Hill, CA
• City of Morgan Hill Recreation Center | Morgan Hill, CA • City of Cupertino Civic Center, Library and Community Hall | Cupertino, CA • Veterans Memorial Building & Senior Center | Redwood City, CA • City of Carmichael Public Library | Carmichael, CA
• City of Berkeley Civic Center | Berkeley, CA*
• Laney College Theater Modernization | Oakland, CA*
• City of Elk Grove Aquatic Center | Elk Grove, CA*
• City of Millbrae Recreation Center | Millbrae, CA*
• City of Piedmont Aquatic Center | Piedmont, CA*
• UC Berkeley Legends Aquatic Center | Berkeley, CA*
• Cañada College Kinesiology & Wellness Center | Redwood City, CA* • College of Marin Miwok Campus, Aquatic Facility | Novato, CA* • College of San Mateo Health and Wellness | San Mateo, CA • Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Community Center | Palo Alto, CA • City College of San Francisco Chinatown/North Beach Campus | San Francisco, CA • City College of San Francisco Daycare Center Evaluation | San Francisco, CA • UCSF Ray & Dagmar Dolby Regeneration Medicine Building | San Francisco, CA • CSU East Bay CORE Library | Hayward, CA
• CSU East Bay Student Services & Administration Building | Hayward, CA *Project with ELS
[email protected]

EDUCATION
MS, Structural Engineering,
University of California,
Berkeley
BS, Architectural
Engineering, California
Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo,
CA

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
California SE License
#4508
California CE License
#57521
mhulbert@
preservationarchitecture.com

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Architect License C
21014
Mark Hulbert

HISTORIC ARCHITECT
As Owner of Preservation Architecture, Mark Hulbert has forty years of professional preservation experience on many important historical projects as a consultant, planner, architect and author. The range of his work includes preservation and rehabilitation consultation to property owners, project sponsors and their project teams; the preparation of historic structures reports, landscape reports, and preservation plans; cultural and historical resources evaluation and consultation specifi c to local, state and national criteria; and historic preservation tax credit applications. His professional qualifi cations exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifi cations Standards in the fi elds of History, Historic Architecture and Architecture, and he is listed by the State of California Historical Resources Information System as a CEQA qualifi ed historical architect and historic preservation consultant. He also holds a Certifi cate in Architectural Conservation from UNESCO’s International Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) in Rome, Italy.

7.3 p. 74 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
B.S. Electrical Engineering,
San Francisco State
University, San Francisco,
CA

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Engineering License
#E19513

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers
National Society of
Professional Engineers
Mark Brown, PE

ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Mark is an Associate Principal at Guttmann & Blaevoet. He has a combined 25 years of experience in electrical engineering design, commissioning, and hands on fi eld operations in normal and emergency power distribution, lighting, fi re alarm, control, and low voltage systems.

He has worked closely with civic/public, higher education, commercial, healthcare, and industrial clients as well as design and construction trade partners. He also brings special knowledge in industrial engineering, controls, and power plant maintenance and operations.

Mark is passionate about providing fully integrated, functional design solutions that not only meet his clients’ needs from day one but also support their facility’s future growth.

EDUCATION
B.S. with Honors in
Mechanical Engineering,
Dundee University,
Dundee, UK

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
CA Engineering License
#M33399

AFFILIATIONS/

ACHIEVEMENTS
LEED Accredited
Professional
American Society of
Heating, Refrigeration & Air
Conditioning Engineers
American Institute of
Architects, Central Valley
Chapter
Gurdaver Singh, PE, LEED AP

PRINCIPAL, MEP ENGINEERING
Gurdaver is a Principal at Guttmann & Blaevoet. He brings 30 years of experience as a principal engineer in mechanical and electrical design for building services in civic/public, higher education, commercial, and healthcare projects. He provides exceptional project management, delivering on time and within the budget.

As a strong proponent of sustainable design, he is specialized in low to zero net energy and zero carbon/all-electric buildings. He has won three ASHRAE Technology Awards for creative design solutions and is a frequent speaker at industry conferences and seminars.

Educated and professionally trained in the United Kingdom, he is very familiar with both LEED and BREEAM (UK) criteria.

7.3 p. 75 of 168
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Master’s Degree, University
of La Verne
Bachelor of Arts,
University of La Verne
David Marquez

SENIOR GRANT WRITER
David Marquez, Senior Grant Writer, has been with California Consulting for over 12 years. He is focused on developing capacity building and community developmentrelated services on behalf of nonprofi t agencies, local government, and the private sector to serve the diverse communities of California. He has extensive experience and familiarity in the area of community and economic development, social and health services, and planning and land use issues. He has combined his knowledge of varied issues with his experience in policy development, coalition building, grant management, fund development, and local government to develop both strategies for issue-oriented advocacy and program sustainability for his clients.

David served as Chief Deputy of Legislation and Policy for former Los Angeles Councilmember Mike Hernandez, where he managed the legislative and planning staff. He began his career as a community organizer, over twenty years ago in East Los Angeles.

RELEVANT PROJECTS
• California Natural Resources Agency-Urban Greening | CalFire | City of Baldwin Park • Prop 64 Public Health and Safety Program | Board of State and Community Corrections and Culture | County of San Benito
• LA County Parks and Recreation Prop Competitive Grant Fund Open Space | Los Angeles County | City of Maywood
• LWCF Grant | California Department of Parks and Recreation | City of Berkeley • CalFire Urban Forest Improvement and Expansion Grant | CalFire | City of Maywood • Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) | California Dept. of Parks & Recreation | City of Baldwin Park • Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) | California Dept. of Parks & Recreation | City of Bell
• Project Proposal Requests for federal funding through the FY23 Appropriations process | Congresswoman Grace Napolitano – Community Project Fund | City of Baldwin Park
• Los Angeles County Open Space District, Maintenance, Operations and Excess Funds (MS&E) Grant | Los Angeles County | City of Baldwin Park • Measure A - Facility | Los Angeles County Regional Parks and Open Space District Measure A - Facility: | City of Bell
• Community Benefi t Grant Program | Kaiser Permanente | City of Baldwin Park • State Budget Request for Community Projects | Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio-State Budget Request | City of Baldwin Park
• Urban Greening Grant | California Natural Resources Agency | City of Baldwin Park • Summer Concert Grant | Los Angeles County Department of Arts | City of Maywood • SPP Prop 68 Round 4 | State of CA, Department of Parks and Recreation | City of Baldwin Park
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) | Sustainable Communities Grant | City of Maywood
• SPP Prop 68 Round 4 | State of CA, Department of Parks and Recreation | City of Baldwin Park
• SPP Prop 68 Round 4 | State of CA, Department of Parks and Recreation | City of Berkeley
• Clean California Local Grant Program | Caltrans | City of Maywood [email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley

PROFESSIONAL

REGISTRATION
Certifi ed Professional
Estimator (CPE), American
Society of Professional
Estimators
Nick Mata, CPE

SENIOR COST ESTIMATOR
Nick serves as Cumming’s Regional Director, with 22 years of cost estimating experience within the construction industry. With a diverse portfolio of project experience, Nick’s work has spanned services for science and technology, healthcare, K12, higher education, civic, and other markets in California. As a cost management leader, Nick’s background in research and conceptual estimating for large-scale projects is invaluable. He is skilled in leading cost teams through milestone estimating, value engineering analysis, change order evaluation, and estimate reconciliation for projects across all sectors. He is profi cient at providing services for capital programs, master plans, facility studies, renovations, new construction, and modernizations alike.

7.3 p. 76 of 168
#+ tab title
Project Name | City,ST
+ prior relevant experience 2b
Project Elevate Retail Mixed-Use Master Plan | Elk Grove, CA

7.3 p. 77 of 168
#+ tab title
NewPark Specifi c Plan Project Name | Nwark, CA | City,ST + prior relevant experience
civic projects

7.3 p. 78 of 168
ELS is collaborating with the City of Redwood
City Parks, Recreation, and Community Service
Department on the $61M construction of a new,
46,000 sf Veterans Memorial Building in Red Morton
Park. The project provides new educational, fi tness,
and recreational resources for the community while
preserving and expanding valued green space in
Red Morton Park. It will feature exhibition space
honoring local veterans and NFL alumni of Northern
California, including interactive displays and rotating exhibits.

The naturally ventilated buildings are targeting
LEED Platinum and Zero Net Energy, following
an innovative approach using solar chimneys,
hydraulic piping, thermal mass, solar mitigation,
and daylighting strategies. A robust community
process, including a traffi c calming study, engaged
neighborhood and stakeholder groups in developing
the design approach. The new facility has an active
pedestrian promenade enlarging the amount of
walkable space in Red Morton Park with updated
landscaping of native plants including 100 newly
planted trees, permeable paving, and bioswales.

This project, currently in construction, is the winner
of the all-electric leadership award for 2021 from
Peninsula Clean Energy and the New Buildings
Institute.

Veterans Memorial Senior Center | CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

7.3 p. 79 of 168
ELS, together with its design-build partner, envisioned this reorganization of Newark’s existing civic center
site and buildings, starting with the demolition of the old city hall and inserting the necessary components
of a modern civic campus. Our work called for three
new, ground-up structures (city administration,
library, and police department). This work also sought
to relocate the library following the conversion of its existing historic shell to other uses.

For this effort, we focused on the quality of
the user experience, with effi cient vehicular and
pedestrian circulation complemented throughout
by paving materials that offered variations in color
and texture. We raised the building pads of the three
new structures by 1.5 feet to eliminate the expense
of off-hauling site soils; this also served to enhance
the civic presence of the library and administration
buildings along the adjacent boulevard and sidewalk
while facilitating a pleasing entry sequence. For
the project’s three new buildings, we proposed
a chassis-based modular structure system that
offered numerous benefi ts including reductions in
cost, waste, and noise.

Newark Civic Center Master Plan Concept | CITY OF NEWARK

7.3 p. 80 of 168
The NewPark Specifi c Plan, developed in
collaboration with EMC Planning Group, charts
a course for a new, mixed-use urban center
surrounding a revitalized regional mall. ELS’ strategy
transforms vast parking lots into mixed-use parcels,
streets, and plazas that support and enhance
the core retail asset and deliver public amenities
currently unavailable in Newark. Key to the plan is
the reimagining of the mall anchors into retail and
entertainment destinations that drive circulation in
and outside the mall.

Each parcel was designed with the fl exibility
to respond to changing market forces, supporting
a variety of confi gurations. The plan strategically
focuses development opportunity to create a
critical mass that can catalyze the larger commercial
district.

NewPark Specifi c Plan | CITY OF NEWARK

7.3 p. 81 of 168
ELS worked with Brentwood city offi cials and EMC
Planning Group to masterplan this 300-acre project
geared toward use as a next-generation town center
and mixed-used development.

Our vision makes the most of connections
to existing lifestyle, retail, and residential areas
while harnessing the multi-modal potential of
nearby bicycle and pedestrian trails, a planned
BART station, and two freeway exits. Our
vision seamlessly weaves the existing streets
of Brentwood through the site, linking future
employers and employees with established shops,
grocery stores, schools, theaters, new homes, and
direct connections to parks and trail systems.

Parcel sizes are fl exible, aimed at
accommodating employer preferences. The
development is attractive to a variety of life
science/medtech and mixed-use developers and
represents one of the few remaining shovel-ready
properties of this scale in the entire San Francisco
Bay Area.

Brentwood Innovation Center | CITY OF BRENTWOOD

7.3 p. 82 of 168
#+ tab title
Project Name | City,ST
+ prior relevant experience
recreation projects
Millbrae Recreation Center | Millbrae, CA

7.3 p. 83 of 168
Mueller Aldrich Town Center is the commercial
and social center of the broader 745-acre
redevelopment of the Mueller Airport in Austin,
Texas. ELS worked with Catellus to develop a
pedestrian oriented, mixed-use district with an
experiential main street bridging the Urban North
Park to the regional destination Lake Park at
the south. After organizing the street and block
structure, ELS master planned each block with
detailed plans for various housing, offi ce, retail,
and entertainment uses that Catellus then used
to entice, and negotiate terms with third party
developers such as Amli and Shorenstein. The blocks
were designed to accommodate both wrapped
and podium garage confi gurations. The sustainably
designed, LEED ND Gold certifi ed mixed-use
district has been developed over time with multiple
architects. ELS provided the planning for many
of the developments, ensuring that the building
program developed by third party developers
contributed to the life on the street and other
overarching goals of the development.

Following the conclusion of our master plan
services on the Town Center, ELS collaborated with
a local architect to design the four-story, 275,000-sf
Austin Energy Headquarters, which was ultimately
certifi ed LEED Platinum and WELL Platinum.

Mueller Aldrich Town Center Master Plan | CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

7.3 p. 84 of 168
Following the destruction of a previous recreation
center in a 2016 fi re, its swift replacement was one
of the Millbrae City Council’s highest priorities.

This social and recreational resource occupies
the same, park-adjacent site as its predecessor; at
23,500 sf, it is 5,000 sf larger than before. Design
and construction, at a cost totaling $28MM, were
fast-tracked through a design-build model. The
facility holds a licensed preschool, fi tness classes,
and seniors’ activities, with a spacious and fl exible
grand room supporting an array of community
events and boasting great natural daylight and
views of the park and San Francisco Bay. A rolldown door allows the community room and kitchen to be used after hours, even when the rest of the
building is closed.

This project is the recipient of a National
Award of Merit from the Design-Build Institute of
America’s Western Pacifi c Region, in the Civic/
Assembly category.

Millbrae Recreation Center | CITY OF MILLBRAE

7.3 p. 85 of 168
Berkeley High School Extension | BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The new athletics and aquatics complex at
Berkeley High School enlivens the urban campus
and encourages after-hours use by students and
community members. Located on a narrow site
at the edge of campus, the addition completes
a central quadrangle envisioned as part of the
school’s 1930s-era master plan. ELS’ work includes a
gymnasium, a 50-meter indoor pool, dance studios,
a student union and dining hall, a library, offi ces,
and a college counseling center. ELS designed the
addition to take maximum advantage of daylight,
exceeding state energy standards. The gym and
pool areas feature large clerestory windows and
the north side of the library’s reading room is fully
glazed. The project also emphasized recycled and
renewable materials, low-emission glazing, and the
use of energy-effi cient equipment.

This project’s honors include an Award of
Excellence from AIA California, a Merit Award from
AIA East Bay, an Innovative Architecture and Design
Award from Recreation Management Magazine, and
the President’s Award from the Downtown Berkeley
Association.

7.3 p. 86 of 168
Cañada College Wellness Center | SAN MATEO COUNTY CCD
Cañada College’s new LEED Gold-certifi ed Wellness
and Aquatics Center replaces a 1967-built gym.

Uniting kinesiology, athletics and dance facilities
into a dynamic, holistic home for wellness, the
center helps students advance in movement
studies, competitive sports, and fi tness. The facility includes two pools, basketball/volleyball courts with
retractable bleachers, a weight room, dance studios,
cafe, and locker room facilities for the men’s and
women’s basketball and volleyball teams. It offers a
membership option for the general public, making it
the only public pool available in Redwood City.

Cantilevered 30 feet over its hillside location,
the facility is marked by a three-story-translucent
lightbox that provides natural light by day and
illuminates the core by night. Located in a WildlandUrban Interface, the building uses discreet fi resafety solutions including infrared fl ame-detectors.

This project has received awards from AIA San
Mateo County, AIA East Bay, Community College
Facility Coalition, DBIA Western Pacifi c Region,
Silicon Valley Business Journal, ENR National and
ENR California, among many others.

7.3 p. 87 of 168
#+ tab title
Grand Theatre Center for the Arts Project Name | Tracy, CA | City,ST + prior relevant experience
historic projects

7.3 p. 88 of 168
San Jose Civic | TEAM SAN JOSE/CITY OF SAN JOSE
Built in 1936, the San Jose Civic (formerly known
as the City National Civic, among other names)
is a Spanish Mission-style, dual-level venue that
historically hosted a wide range of civic events,
including performing arts, conventions, city dances
and general assembly. Retaining the building’s
historic character, ELS renovated the Civic to
feature 3,000 seats in concert form (or 500 seats
in banquet form), four meeting rooms for 110
seats, fi ve food and beverage concession spaces,
restroom improvements, as well as improvements
to the 380-seat Montgomery Theatre that is home
to San Jose Children’s Musical Theater. Much of
the rehabilitation was completed while the theater
remained in operation.

Offi cially reopened, the Civic continues its
tradition as the favored concert venue for Silicon
Valley under the promotion of Nederlander
Concerts and provides a major program venue for
the McEnery Convention Center directly across on
San Carlos Street.

7.3 p. 89 of 168
For this important community landmark, ELS is
overseeing essential upgrades that will ensure the
vitality of the site for generations to come. Originally comprising a public school and a vocational
building, the complex was designed in the Spanish
Colonial Revival style by prominent Los Angeles
architect John C. Austin and built in 1928. Today,
this community center hosts numerous non-profi t
organizations, with original classrooms now used
for instruction in dance, music, and the visual and
performing arts, along with offi ce space for local
non-profi ts and a community meeting room. Our
goal is to support these uses by upgrading the
overall experience, reverse prior non-historic
modifi cations, and enabling new, revenue-generating
programming opportunities.

All in accordance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, our scope has included upgrading the
auditorium in support of more live performances,
making ADA improvements, and replacing exterior
windows; we are also modifying the classrooms to
address their specifi c uses, along with upgrades to
the fi re protection and HVAC systems and installing
new lobby seating areas.

César Chávez Community Center | CITY OF RIVERSIDE

7.3 p. 90 of 168
The renovated historic Lisser Hall provides state-ofthe-art academic teaching facilities for the dance, theater and digital arts departments, with three
fl exible venues available for community rentals. The
building renovation included a complete seismic
retrofi t and created a fully accessible facility with a new elevator, stage lift, entry ramp and restrooms.

A new 2,000 sf deck overlooks Leona Creek and
provides an outdoor gathering space for students.

Located at the heart of the campus, the renovated
Lisser Hall serves as an interdisciplinary center,
activating student use by hosting a wide range of
lectures, readings, performances, conferences and
community events.

This project won a Preservation Design Award
from the California Preservation Foundation.

Lisser Hall | MILLS COLLEGE AT NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

7.3 p. 91 of 168
Grand Theatre Center for the Arts | CITY OF TRACY
The Grand Theatre Center for the Arts integrates
several restored buildings on half a city block into
a new arts complex, which includes a 560-seat
proscenium theater, a 100-seat black box theater,
dance, visual arts, and music studios, and art
galleries located in former street front retail spaces.

The former spaces between the buildings have
been captured as programmed space to create a
new lobby lit by skylights. Rather than seeking a
unifying design vocabulary, each building expresses
its individual character, maintaining the rich variety
and personality of a downtown that feels attractively
authentic.

This project won a Preservation Design Award
from the California Preservation Foundation and a
California Heritage Council Award.

7.3 p. 92 of 168
Brentwood Innovation Center | Brentwood, CA
+ references 3

7.3 p. 93 of 168

SUZI FURJANIC
Parks Planning Manager,
City of Santa Ana
[email protected]
714.571.4241
Memorial Park Aquatics Center & Master Plan
City of Santa Ana
ELS+SWA are working with the City of Santa Ana to provide concept planning for a new aquatics facility and master plan for Memorial Park. Dedicated in May 1950, this is a 16.3-acre city park located near the city center, surrounded by single-family homes. It currently holds ballfields, a concession/restroom building, basketball courts, courts for volleyball and handball, areas for fitness equipment and a playground area, a band shell and lawn areas, and the city’s largest municipal swimming pool, from 1956. The project will provide a strategic method of redevelopment for Memorial Park, including rebuilding the aquatics facility.

The project scope is currently projected to include rooms for public events and fitness training, a splash park, sports courts (for basketball, volleyball, hand ball, pickle ball), and areas for fitness equipment, picnicking, recreation, and concerts. The new pool will measure 25 feet by 50 meters, with a maximum depth of seven feet.

Our low-rise design for this project draws on the residential typologies found throughout the adjacent neighborhood while its sawtooth roof line pays tribute to the area’s agricultural past.

CHRIS BETH
Retired Director of Parks,Recreation, and Community Services, City of Redwood City
[email protected]
650.333.8803
Veterans Memorial Senior Center & Joint YMCA
City of Redwood City
ELS is collaborating with the City of Redwood City Parks, Recreation, and Community Service Department on the $61M construction of a new, 46,000 sf Veterans Memorial Building in Red Morton Park. The project provides new educational, fitness, and recreational resources for the community while preserving and expanding valued green space in Red Morton Park. It will feature exhibition space honoring local veterans and NFL alumni of Northern California, including interactive displays and rotating exhibits. The buildings are naturally ventilated and are targeting LEED Platinum and Zero Net Energy. The innovative approach includes solar chimneys, hydraulic piping, thermal mass, solar mitigation, and daylighting strategies. A robust community process, including a traffic calming study, engaged neighborhood and stakeholder groups in developing the design approach. The new facility has an active pedestrian promenade enlarging the amount of walkable space in Red Morton Park with updated landscaping of native plants including 100 newly planted trees, permeable paving, and bioswales.

This project is the winner of the all-electric leadership award for 2021 from Peninsula Clean Energy and the New Buildings Institute.

CHRIS DELA ROSA
Vice President,
Ohlone College
[email protected]
510.659.7307
Ohlone College Facilities Master Plan
Fremont & Newark,CA
ELS, in conjunction with SWA and NeuCampus Planning, performed facilities assessments (including space utilization and physical condition reviews) at the College’s original Fremont Campus and the more recent Newark Center, noting where existing buildings can be modernized in addition to identifying key areas for enhancement; we also proposed the addition of a new student housing project—the first such development for Ohlone College. We identified growth opportunities related to financing, diversity, and community engagement, looking closely at post-pandemic enrollment alongside the area’s evolving demographics and challenging costs of living. By helping Ohlone forge new connections among its adjoining cities, we have worked to expand the College’s reach by identifying programs and partnerships that would be mutually beneficial for the College and those cities, including sharing agreements and on-campus commercial uses. We also explored methods to appeal to non-traditional students and to develop a greater emphasis on continued learning and enrichment programs.

References
Below are references for work performed by ELS within the past 10 years.

City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 43

7.3 p. 94 of 168

TERRENCE GRINDALL
Former Assistant City Manager, City of Brentwood
[email protected]
510.936.3670
Brentwood Innovation Center
City of Brentwood
ELS worked with Brentwood city officials and EMC Planning Group to masterplan this 300-acre project geared toward use as a nextgeneration town center and mixed-used development.

Our vision makes the most of connections to existing lifestyle, retail, and residential areas while harnessing the multi-modal potential of nearby bicycle and pedestrian trails, a planned BART station, and two freeway exits. Our vision seamlessly weaves the existing streets of Brentwood through the site, linking future employers and employees with established shops, grocery stores, schools, theaters, new homes, and direct connections to parks and trail systems. Parcel sizes are flexible, aimed at accommodating employer preferences.

The development is attractive to a variety of life science/medtech and mixed-use developers and represents one of the few remaining shovelready properties of this scale in the entire San Francisco Bay Area.

HAZEL WETHERFORD
Deputy City Manager, City of Dublin
[email protected]
925.833.6650
Downtown Dublin Preferred Vision
City of Dublin
The City of Dublin selected ELS in partnership with Urban Field Studio, to develop an actionable urban design plan for their downtown. The resulting Preferred Vision includes a new and extensive street grid network, including a main street experience, a new town square, and a mix of supportive land uses such as retail, office, hotel, and residential. The plan will create a focal point and sense of place for the surrounding community. The district is anchored by a town square, a one-acre park envisioned with surrounding shops and restaurants.

Featuring open space designed for activation, the town square could host classes, concerts, movies, markets, and other events. Surrounding the square, a new street grid breaks down existing blocks into smaller, more walkable segments, lined with active ground-floor uses. The mixed-use format of the proposed downtown helps diversify the economic base of the entire district, inviting a range of activity and creating the flexibility to endure changing economic conditions. The Preferred Vision reflects influence and support from both private and public sectors and will guide future development, elevating the City’s ability to be a regional destination for jobs, housing, and cultural activities. The project received an Award of Merit in Urban Design from the APA California Northern Chapter – Northern Section, 2022, and an Honor Award from the AIA California Urban Design Awards, 2021.

Samples of Past Work

BRENTWOOD INNOVATION CENTER
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/home/
showpublisheddocument/6558/638061902855700000
innovatebrentwood.com

MEMORIAL PARK AQUATICS CENTER & MASTER PLAN
https://tinyurl.com/5n8xudy7

OHLONE COLLEGE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
https://tinyurl.com/237frbbc
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 44

7.3 p. 95 of 168
Lisser Hall Historic Renovation, Mills College at Northeastern University | Oakland, CA 4 + proposed methodology

7.3 p. 96 of 168
Proposed Methodology
Project Understanding
In planning for the future of its civic campus, the City of Gilroy has something that many municipalities in similar circumstances do not: a large amount of consolidated, amenity-ready land in an ideal, community-friendly location. Several newer facilities can remain on site, helping to reduce overall costs; the City will also benefit from a wonderful and historic community gym (at the corner of Church St. and W. 6th) that could easily anchor the site’s corner. Retaining these existing structures will support the project by averting the unnecessary release and replacement of their embodied energy. Another asset comes from the subdivision of the project area by Hanna Street, which offers a chance to capture land for development and/or to improve site access.

Like many sites that are built up over decades, the Civic Center has a significant opportunity to expand the space available for development by consolidating and simplifying the parking areas. While any new uses are likely to increase the overall parking count, the current sevenlot parking configuration is highly inefficient and can be streamlined so that land can be given back in return for uses that reflect best practices in strategic development.

In short, we’re excited by the many assets of Gilroy’s existing civic center and we’re ready to focus more deeply with your team on creating an ultra-functional, community-oriented site that will streamline the city’s administrative operations while also becoming a destination for residents and visitors alike.

ELS Architecture and Urban Design and EMC Planning Group have joined together to bring their combined history of design, planning and environmental experience to assist the City of Gilroy in advancing its vision on a new community-centered vision for the Gilroy Civic Center.

The team is ready to provide an updated, comprehensive Civic Center Master Plan (superseding the 2002 adopted plan) that will create a clear vision, an action plan, a timeline, and a financial strategy in order to meet the City government’s administrative and operational needs through City build-out while also meeting the needs of the Gilroy community. Joining the ELS/EMC team will be a group of key experts to assist in planning, financing assessment, and environmental planning.

Our all-Bay Area team is available to start upon selection and is well positioned to see the Civic Center project through by designing a buildable vision. We can also providing guidance to the City as it moves forward with subsequent steps, including the selection of a delivery method and consultants, advising on a general obligation bond, and issues surrounding land use, infrastructure, and urban design.

We are very excited to have on our team Larry Tramutola, one of the state’s foremost experts in getting bonds passed through the election process. His firm, Tramutola, was established almost 40 years ago to help public entities plan for and pass bond and parcel tax measures.

The firm provides specialized advice related to tax election feasibility, timing and sequencing of elections, planning, and communications that build community support. Tramutola has helped public agencies of all sizes and demographic profiles pass local revenue measures through effective strategies, a grassroots approach to community outreach, and most importantly, thoughtful and candid political advice. Larry has worked collaboratively with our clients to plan for and win 400+ local tax elections in California leading to $50 billion in new revenue for community facilities (schools, hospitals, recreation centers, senior centers, services, and programs). Especially when super majority votes are required, success demands individualized attention and often training of local citizens.

In addition to Larry Tramutola, our team is composed of firms that are specific to the challenges presented by the Gilroy Civic Center. Those consultants include:
• SWA Group is an internationally celebrated firm that has designed some of the most striking civic landscapes of the last half century.

ELS and SWA have been teaming up on projects for the last 30 years and are currently performing numerous important civic projects together.
• Hayat Brown has 12 years of experience helping municipalities navigate the complexities of private-public-partnerships while determining which delivery method is best for each project. Their real estate advisory services guide clients through all stages of the early process, from feasibility and financial structuring to transaction execution.
• Hexagon Transportation Consultants brings years of experience working in Gilroy and with EMC on planning and environmental issues. Hexagon provides services in all major aspects of transportation planning and traffic engineering. Their years of community relationships will be a huge asset for our team. • BKF Engineers has been in the Bay Area for over a century, diligently guiding projects from their initial stages of due diligence and feasibility to project designs and permitting approvals and concluding with construction and implementation. Their diverse project portfolio, combined with innovative design solutions and extensive local experience, will allow them to start the project with a large base of knowledge that benefits the whole team. • Brightworks offers deep experience and time-tested approaches to the process of leading project teams through LEED certification.

They’ve successfully certified 600+ LEED projects by setting clear goals, identifying practical strategies for achieving them, and providing the content-expertise and project management followthrough needed to support and document those strategies. • Mark Hulbert and ELS have teamed on important historic projects such as Riverside’s Cesar Chavez Community Center. As a preservation architect, Mark combines thorough knowledge of historic structures with an understanding of project delivery in today’s cost climate. He identifies practical solutions for revitalizing historic structures targeting long-term use and durability. • Cumming Group, founded in California in 1996, is a leader in providing project consulting services to the A/E/C industry, including cost and project management, planning and scheduling, and construction dispute resolution. Cumming Group’s cost team is one of the largest providers of cost estimating and management services in the country, including a skilled team of in-house MEP cost specialists. ELS teams frequently with Cumming so that our projects can benefit from their extensive knowledge of local construction pricing and the nuances of market conditions.

We have also brought on the experienced teams of Forell/ Elsesser and Guttmann & Blaevoet to provide structural and MEP assessments, respectively, for the existing buildings, to provide systems recommendations for renovations and new buildings (with a focus on achieving and maintaining embodied energy efficiency), and to identify the most sustainable systems for long-term operation and ownership.

Throughout our history, ELS has focused on “putting the pieces together,” that is, designing places and spaces that bring community interests together for the benefit of all stakeholders. ELS’ awardwinning land-use planning and urban design practice is dedicated to sensitive, efficient, buildable place-making solutions designed around a flexible framework that can be built as a single development or over time in phases. In our experience, a master plan that is informed by a broad spectrum of voices can help navigate all manner of challenges and opportunities, delivering an authentic and endearing place. This is especially important for the Gilroy Civic Center, given the numerous City departments, civic entities, and community stakeholders that must each have a say in the site’s future.

ELS’ national reputation for successful design and sensitive, contextbased planning is formed from years of working with municipalities across California and the nation, developing enduring civic and master City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 46

7.3 p. 97 of 168
plans that stand the test of design due to their timeless aesthetic and flexibility that allows the future and the present to coexist. ELS’ urban design work includes collaborations with public clients on projects including: the City of Sunnyvale’s Downtown Plan, which transforms a historic main street and a failing mall into a mixed-use, transit-oriented district; the Midtown Study for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, where we proposed the revitalization of an aging retail corridor; and Mueller Aldrich Town Center, in Austin, Texas, where our master plan for a former airport led to a locally inspired, 1.3-million-square-foot mixeduse neighborhood. These experiences serve your project well, in that the Gilroy Civic Center should do more than simply provide services— this should be a true city center that, through daily use by numerous user types, acts as a community asset. Our 50+ years of experience in urban design gives us a deep understanding of how community spaces succeed. Our experience also helps ensure that the land use and infrastructure can create an armature of economic, operational, and environmental health.

EMC Planning Group is an interdisciplinary land use and environmental planning firm that has assisted cities, counties, and special districts with environmental and planning consulting services for the past 46 years.

Established in 1978, EMC Planning Group began writing EIRs for Monterey County, and over the past 46 years has grown to provide a wide variety of planning and environmental services. The firm’s environmental staff assists public agencies with preparation of environmental documentation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), obtaining various regulatory permits from regional, state, and federal agencies for capital improvement projects, and conducting technical site assessments. Our land use planners provide support to public agency planning departments by reviewing and processing development project applications ranging from conditional use permits to large annexations and subdivisions, and are capable of providing long-range planning services such as preparing general plan updates and implementation measures, specific plans, master development plans, housing element updates and pro housing designations , and are experienced with grant writing for public improvement projects.

STAFFING PLAN
For our staffing plan, please see the Fee Proposal in Section 6. For the availability of key staff, please see the team organization chart and resumes in Section 2.

LOCAL DESIGN GROUNDED IN COMMUNITY
The ELS/EMC team believes in grounding planning and design solutions in sustainable design principles. We must take advantage of any assets already in place while simultaneously addressing realworld financial and technical shortcomings. This will afford the Gilroy Civic Center a positive identity and create a new, unique community space with expanded outdoor public spaces to define the site as a place of gathering and service to all users. Key to the success of the modernized Gilroy Civic Center will be a strong sense of place: visitors must know this is a venue for civic purpose and potential. We can achieve this sensibility through careful land planning, a human-scaled civic landscape design, regularized street furniture, a cohesive street scape, and multi-modal, pedestrian-friendly connectivity that allows visitors to easily enter and navigate the Civic Center.

Sustainable financing and authentic placemaking when done right will corroborate each other. We achieve this balance through strategic, open-minded collaboration that, even when a project’s vast scale seems to put unique place-making at risk, tackles complex design challenges by prioritizing human-scaled, cohesive community experiences and facilitating a successful transition from planning to building. The Gilroy Civic Center is at such a crucial juncture. We are excited by the opportunity to join and engage with the City to preserve the integrity of the civic functions and make it stronger and more resilient as we redesign it towards a true community home.

A sensitive understanding of Gilroy’s growing, vibrant community will be key to this project’s success. Gilroy’s crossroads location between Silicon Valley and our state’s agricultural heartland gives it a unique socio-economic mix not often seen elsewhere in the region. The city’s demographics are marvelously diverse, with a bedrock Latino community that contributes immeasurably to the cultural landscape, as reflected in countless ways including commerce, cuisine, festivals, and art. The city’s parks, climate, viticulture, and proximity to the Santa Cruz Mountains have made it a destination for families and others seeking a calm, balanced, outdoor-friendly lifestyle where the Californian lifestyle comes to life. The ELS/EMC team sees these qualities as essential to shaping the Civic Center modernization.

The ELS/EMC team is an ideal fit for the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan because the team blends local knowledge, technical capacity, and similar experiences with cities hoping to enhance their communities through great urban projects. The ELS/EMC team can help you make the Civic Center master plan a viable, long-term success by streamlining city services and creating a new centerpiece for Gilroy’s remarkable growth.

Project Approach
The ELS/EMC team with SWA Group’s landscape architects will collaborate on urban design, architectural design, environmental/ CEQA analysis, financial feasibility, and landscape and urban design, marrying EMC’s extensive community and environmental planning specialties with ELS and SWA’s expertise in creating great urban spaces. At the core of each of our practices is the innovative design of buildable, authentic places balanced by real-world financial solutions.

Our team’s management style is thorough, hands-on, and rooted in community decision making. The planning effort will consist of many voices. Our goal will be to give each voice a role in shaping the future of the Gilroy Civic Center.

Below we will focus on this project’s most essential, character-defining issues and identify how they will support our work on the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan:

Master Planning the Public Realm
The largest scale at which we work—cities and districts—are planned to encourage the celebration of the public realm. Working at this scale, we look at economics, placemaking and redevelopment strategies to create vibrant, memorable districts that people love returning to again and again.

We will work closely with the City, community members and other stakeholders to understand the aspirations for this important site, focusing on creating public spaces that accommodate a variety of social environments (large groups, small groups, couples, families, singles, youth, seniors, etc.) increasing the relevance of the place for the community and encouraging diversity among the people it attracts.

Gilroy is a family-oriented city, and the needs of children must be reflected in the Civic Center vision, whether through dedicated play areas, water features, or other child-focused amenities.

We believe that the Civic Center modernization should promote a sense of arrival and an awareness that one has entered a pedestrian, civic, slow-driving district where the community takes priority. We also believe that identifiable, safe, reliably available parking is crucial to the success of any large development. The project team will assess current and future parking needs with respect to different development strategies. We will present case studies drawn from our work with other appropriate cities facing similar challenges.

Place-Sensitive Design
A comprehensive approach to urban design includes an active pedestrian realm, a signage program that ties the district together, architectural design that is timeless, and sculpture, murals, and other artwork as an integral aspect of planning.

The modernized Civic Center has an ideal location that could make it a green oasis within its broader district, more so given Gilroy’s warm year-round climate. The creation of great spaces requires a strategic framework process that prioritizes a shared vision and public City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 47

7.3 p. 98 of 168
advocacy for the plan. To that end, our consultant team will collect and analyze local data, present a variety of opportunities, prompt discussion around those ideas, foster openness and debate, identify new opportunities, and create a publicly driven resolution for the future. As the plan is implemented, our understanding of funding options and project delivery will influence the plan and its phasing, requiring consistent input and support from the community. The strategic framework must introduce this notion of engagement while establishing a process for amendments to the vision. The result will be a plan that is locally sourced, credible, flexible, advocated for by the community, and most importantly, unique to its people and place.

Phasing to Achieve Results
We will create a phased plan that is grounded in constructability, with results that can be developed.

The ELS/EMC team is experienced in phasing master plans in ways that encourage the best future outcome with the fewest disruptions possible. This comes from a strong understanding of constructability, City goals for each department, and scheduling. That includes fostering a level of flexibility that facilitates the most cost-efficient construction types and timelines. This is achieved through a detailed understanding of each city department’s needs, the way each department can move, how the site parking can be shifted over the development timeline and how to maintain a civic front door over the entire construction timeline. Included in this is the allowance for different parking strategies, a clear understanding of contractor space requirements, and how the overall economics of the project and potential bond and grant timelines can lead to a speedy timeline for completion.

Identifying a Financial Approach for Success
Project funding will determine the best development route & timeline.

The master plan must be buildable and financeable. The development of appropriate financing strategies has been key to the successful realization of many ELS/EMC projects. That starts with the cost estimate, which, for existing buildings planned for upgrade, must address the highly technical work involved—simple square foot costs are not enough to get an estimate with high confidence. With the master plan and estimates in hand, our experienced team will identify funding options that achieve the City’s goals. Bond funding is a long process, and if done with a strong knowledge of the community’s political terrain, can be essential for bringing the project to fruition.

Creating a Unique Civic Experience
Unique experiences are core to creating a sense of place. We aim to weave socially engaging open spaces and landscapes into the civic center site to create an identity and opportunity found nowhere else.

Revitalizing the Civic Center site requires creating an active, engaging outdoor environment with an interconnected open space network that improves and expands upon pedestrian and cyclist opportunities. We can lay atop this landscape, a host of civic events, which are central to the life of a city: activities such as a weekly farmers market, regular fairs for art and food, food trucks, outdoor movies in the warm months, and other exciting draws will lead to a perception among residents and visitors that this place is worth checking out year-round.

Fostering Sustainability
Concerns about urban sprawl, traffic congestion, resource depletion and environmental impacts are spurring communities to integrate sustainability into their planning efforts. Sustainable development means considering how current decisions impact the community’s long-term economic vitality, quality of life, diversity, resource usage, social well-being and environmental health. When we combine environmental stewardship, resource conservation, community needs, and the principles of new urbanism, we produce innovative development approaches that create value for generations of residents and visitors.

The Gilroy Civic Center can lead in green design by prioritizing sustainability in a range of areas, from improving storm water quality and conserving water to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through environmental policy and green building technologies. The ELS/EMC master plan will include best practices in sustainability, focusing on standards for the selected development team to create the most environmentally friendly development possible, positioning the modernized district as a new benchmark for sustainable growth.

ELS is recognized as a California Green Business and is a participant in the AIA’s 2030 Commitment to reduce the operational energy use of our buildings. ELS master planned the 39-acre Mueller Aldrich Town Center, now steadily being built out. Our town center is part of the 700-acre Mueller Development, which earned a Stage 2 Silver certification in LEED’s Neighborhood Development Pilot Program. Our Austin Energy Headquarters is also LEED Platinum and WELL Platinum certified. David Masenten, ELS’ Principal and Director of Mixed-Use Practice, managed the Emeryville Marketplace Redevelopment, which made history as the first LEED ND Platinum project, while with his previous firm.

Energizing the District
The Civic Center redevelopment will build energy for the community as a gathering space, creating further synergy by emphasizing physical and visual linkages so that the Civic Center becomes key to the larger neighborhood.

The urban design plan needs to address how the Civic Center relates to its surroundings, supporting the neighborhood places it connects to and confirming that it doesn’t add to traffic or parking issues.

Our urban design approach always looks beyond project boundaries to understand important sightlines and affirming how the new development will fit into the framework of the city.

PROJECT EXAMPLES
The projects summarized below illustrate our team’s collective experience in engaging stakeholders for visioning and design input, crafting land use and urban design solutions, generating technical and economic analyses, and integrating these inputs into creative, implementable master plans. The projects also demonstrate the team’s deep understanding of public sector work and show how we produce developments that are grounded in place, relevant to the community, and operationally superior. Representative CEQA experience for planbased projects is also included.

City of Newark NewPark Specific Plan and CEQA. EMC Planning Group and ELS collaborated on the preparation of this Specific Plan, which charts a course for a new mixed-use urban center around a revitalized regional mall. The team’s strategy transforms vast parking lots into mixed-use parcels, streets, and plazas that support and enhance the core retail asset and deliver public amenities and activities currently not available in Newark. Key to the plan is re-imagining the anchor tenants into retail and entertainment destinations that drive circulation inside and outside the mall. Each mixed-use parcel has been designed with the flexibility to respond to changing market forces, supporting a variety of office and housing configurations. The plan strategically concentrates development opportunities to create a critical mass meant to catalyze the larger commercial district. ELS’ role focused on the urban-design component of the Specific Plan. EMC Planning Group collaborated on and integrated urban design inputs into a comprehensive specific plan providing development flexibility with clear, precise development guidance aimed at facilitating efficient development implementation.

EMC Planning Group also prepared CEQA documentation for the specific plan.

City of Newark NewPark Specific Plan Implementation Planning and CEQA. Support Newark’s NewPark Specific Plan implementation process, EMC Planning Group is leading a team that includes ELS and technical subconsultants. Our team is responding to Brookfield Properties’ proposal of amendments to the approved specific plan and project-specific entitlements to develop two distinct projects:
a residential/retail mixed-use site and a commercial retail complex.

EMC Planning Group is preparing amendments to the specific plan, City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 48

7.3 p. 99 of 168
supporting the development review process, and preparing a unified CEQA document that analyzes the combined effects of both projects.

EMC Planning Group technical subconsultants are peer-reviewing studies submitted by applicants, while ELS is providing key urban design review support services to ensure that the specific plan amendments and project designs are consistent with the specific plan’s urban design vision.

City of Sand City Vibrancy Plan, City Staff Planning Support, and EIR. EMC Planning Group prepared the Sand City Vibrancy Plan and provided City staff with planning support. The Vibrancy Plan, which won an APA Northern California Chapter award, articulates a vision in the City’s General Plan to transition the historically industrial West End and South of Tioga districts into a cohesive, vibrant mixed-use community. The Vibrancy Plan is an economic development document that addresses fundamental planning issues relating to land use, circulation, parking, street scape improvements, and aesthetics. Its implementation framework addresses processing and regulatory issues, with strategies for investment in physical improvements and catalyst projects. EMC Planning Group led a public outreach program, prepared the EIR, assisted with acquiring an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, prepared the project consideration package, and represented the project in front of the City Council. To kick-start the Vibrancy Plan’s implementation, EMC Planning Group also prepared rezoning documentation for a portion of the plan area and prepared mixed-use zoning district standards. In addition, EMC Planning Group provided planning support services to the City to process the South of Tioga redevelopment project, which will anchor one end of the Vibrancy Plan area with 356 new residences and a 216-room hotel.

City of Greenfield Walnut Avenue Specific Plan, Planning Services and EIR. EMC Planning Group prepared a specific plan and EIR for the City of Greenfield for a 60-acre project site located north of Walnut Avenue and immediately east of US Highway 101. The specific plan is intended to catalyze commercial and high-density residential uses, respond to the City’s economic development needs, and fulfill the community’s desire for placemaking amid a community destination.

The specific plan allows land-use flexibility within a framework of assumptions regarding development capacity. EMC Planning Group designed and implemented a stakeholder outreach process that included several community meetings and design consultations with affected property owners. EMC Planning Group also prepared an EIR and provided planning support services by preparing staff reports, resolutions and ordinances, and project and CEQA findings.

City of Salinas Travel Center Specific Plan - City Staff Entitlement Support and EIR. EMC Planning Group was retained by the City of Salinas to provide City staff planning support services and to prepare an EIR for a 62-acre commercial and industrial project at the U.S.

Highway 101/Airport Boulevard interchange. Entitlements included annexation, pre-zoning, specific plan, general plan amendment, parcel map and site plan review approvals. Entitlement support services included interfacing with the applicant, reviewing and managing the applicant’s specific plan content and preparation process, preparing the annexation application, managing supporting technical documentation, and preparing the project consideration package (staff report, findings, ordinances, and resolutions). EMC Planning Group biologists completed a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit and a Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Permit to support the applicant’s permit process.

City of Atwater Ferrari Ranch Master Plan – City Staff Entitlement Support and EIR. EMC Planning Group provided entitlement management, planning, and CEQA services to the City of Atwater to facilitate development of a 358-acre site adjacent to the City of Atwater. Entitlements included a general plan amendment, pre-zoning, annexation, master plan, vesting tentative map, and development agreement. New development capacity included 191 residential units; 2,494,000 square feet of commercial and business park uses; 667,000 square feet of hospital and medical office uses; and a 20-acre regional park. EMC Planning Group coordinated technical inputs, peer-reviewed applicant technical inputs, prepared the annexation application and managed the LAFCO review process, prepared the project consideration packages (staff report, resolutions and ordinances, project findings, CEQA findings, statement of overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring program, and conditions of approval) and provided substantial input to the applicant’s master plan. EMC Planning Group also prepared a comprehensive program EIR.

Town of Los Gatos North Forty Specific Plan EIR. EMC Planning Group prepared an EIR for a mixed-use retail, office, and residential project for the Town of Los Gatos. The EIR focused on traffic and circulation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, historic resources, visual impacts, noise, farmland, surface water drainage, biological resources, and schools. The project, anticipated in the Town’s General Plan for more than twenty years, led to vigorous public debate on how the specific plan fits within the municipal vision. Other significant public concerns addressed traffic conditions, adequacy of walking and bicycling connections, protection of viewsheds, preservation of historic agricultural ties, and the potential for this project to affect the town’s thriving downtown business district
Dunes at Half Moon Bay Specific Plan. EMC Planning Group is currently providing entitlement management services to the landowner for a fifty-acre high-end hotel, high-end RV park and hostel visitorserving project on the coast in Half Moon Bay. EMC Planning Group prepared a comprehensive project application, supporting technical documentation, and a draft specific plan. EMC Planning Group is also managing the work of associated technical consultants, representing the project in meetings with the City, responsible agencies, and the Coastal Commission, and participating in the public relations process.

Required entitlements include a coastal development permit, rezoning and tentative map. The project is highly controversial given its location on vacant land adjacent to Dunes State Beach and has dealt with the public’s perception that it is entitled to its open space and related aesthetic benefits.

Greentree Specific Plan. EMC Planning Group is currently representing the landowner in preparing a specific plan, technical reports, and a project application for a 250-acre infill site in the City of Vacaville. The project includes a mix of senior housing, medium- to high-density housing, and a commercial center. Required entitlements include a general plan amendment, rezoning, tentative map and design review. As a subconsultant to EMC Planning Group, ELS is providing urban design inputs to the specific plan with particular focus on placemaking, non-vehicular connectivity, and commercial center design. EMC Planning Group is also preparing GHG/air quality and cultural resources reports as inputs to the City’s CEQA process, and coordinating the work of additional technical consultants whose work also supports the CEQA process.

City of Sunnyvale Urban Design Plan. ELS was engaged by the City of Sunnyvale to update a ten-year-old specific plan for the City’s commercial core. ELS staff facilitated a series of six stakeholder workshops, five City staff technical meetings, and fifteen other meetings, including a planning commission presentation and a City Council presentation. Stakeholder groups included residents, business owners, the downtown businesses association, local developers, major property owners, and City agencies. Workshops established a vision for the future and addressed current market forces, future market opportunities, possible public infrastructure upgrades, traffic impacts, and identification of opportunity sites. The urban design plan took shape and evolved concurrently with the workshop process.

Ultimately the stakeholder committee voted to approve the plan and recommended it to the City Council. The plan was adopted, and the City revised the specific plan and the zoning ordinance.

City of Fort Collins Midtown Commercial Redevelopment Study.

ELS completed an urban design study for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, recommending improvements to a three-mile bus transit corridor in the midtown commercial core and devising a strategy to revitalize a failing mall. A series of stakeholder and community City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 49

7.3 p. 100 of 168
workshops informed the design and helped create public support for new residential density and placemaking opportunities.

Mueller Aldrich Town Center Master Plan. In collaboration with the City of Austin and Catellus, ELS facilitated multiple workshops with residents of the community of Mueller, Texas. The public process has had a profound influence on the character, density, and configuration of public space in the town center design. The result is a home-grown urban design plan that sets the stage for a variety of social activities that are dear to Mueller residents. Workshops were first organized to vet larger concepts and build consensus, followed by subsequent workshops dealing with the plan’s finer points. The process enabled the community to come together under a common understanding that facilitated the resolution of challenging details. The result is a natural and organic development process, occurring over time, that is enriched by multiple designers and the community.

Telegraph Avenue Design Charrette. Volunteering with the Berkeley Design Advocates, ELS has helped facilitate community workshops, walking tours, two design charrettes, and the final reports for the revitalization of Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Telegraph Avenue’s legacy is crucial to the identity of the Berkeley community and the history of the movement for free speech. For over a hundred years, Telegraph Avenue has been the gathering place for students, innovators, activists, tourists, and the people that live there. Recently, the street has suffered from neglect and high vacancy rates. These Telegraph Avenue design charrettes have engaged the community, raised awareness of the potential for change, and renewed the energy of public-realm advocates. Charrette participants included community activists, environmental leaders, architects, transit engineers, and politicians, all coming together to identify issues and propose creative solutions. The charrette results represent a collaborative community effort, proactively improving a legacy district.

Project Scope
TASK 1 –PROJECT INITIATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT:
2 Weeks/Ongoing
The ELS/EMC Team will prepare a project schedule for the Civic Center Master Plan and implementation from the start of the project through the opening of the new Gilroy Civic Center. The schedule will account for all of the required meetings with stakeholders, Planning Commission and City Council, along with the working group identified by the City of Gilroy.

ELS/EMC will work with City staff to schedule a project kick-off meeting to discuss goals and present the draft schedule for discussion.

The team will review a project timeline and plan for frequent check-ins with City Staff so that we can work collaboratively with all stakeholders to meet the project requirements.

Once the project has been kicked off, the ELS/EMC team will schedule regular coordination meetings with City project management staff, including the Civic Center Development Team (CCDT). Our team will keep meeting minutes for all CCDT meetings. Project coordination meetings are anticipated to be virtual, occurring bi-weekly with the City’s project manager. Throughout the process the team will maintain and update a project schedule with key milestones, including City Council and Commission meetings and the CEQA timeline.

DELIVERABLE: Project schedule.

MEETINGS: Kick-off meeting with City staff.

TASK 2 –EXISTING CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT: 5 Weeks
The ELS/EMC Team will carefully review existing conditions and documents to identify site opportunities and constraints. Planning documents will be analyzed for confirmation of the existing situation and to identify all opportunities and necessary alterations. The ELS/ EMC team is experienced in facilities assessments and will bring a team of experts to review the existing buildings and prepare a report on conditions along with a recommendation of work needed. The tasks for this phase include:

1. Identify existing land uses and property ownership boundaries, including easements

2. Review of General Plan and Civic Center Master Plans

3. Review General Plan EIR and its relationship to potential changes

4. Research existing environmental conditions

5. Locate and review existing infrastructure information as much as possible; it is anticipated that the City of Gilroy will assist in providing information
DELIVERABLE: Civic Center Existing Conditions and Opportunities and Constraints Assessment.

MEETINGS: One site-walk of all existing facilities to review conditions.

TASK 3–NEEDS ASSESSMENT: 16 Weeks
The ELS/EMC team will bring its robust community engagement team to deliver a process that is inclusive and comprehensive while developing the input needed to advance the project to the design phase. The team will achieve this as follows:

1. ELS/EMC will develop an online survey for user groups;

2. ELS/EMC will develop an online survey for community members;

3. ELS/EMC will prepare workshop materials including graphics, presentations and large-format boards with project information;

4. ELS/EMC will hold five (5) community meetings scheduled in collaboration with the City. These meetings will be provided at different times and in different formats to ensure the largest number of people are able to participate. ELS/EMC will provide Spanish translation as needed.

5. ELS/EMC will participate in a workshop with the Planning Commission once feedback has been received from the stakeholder process. This meeting will give Planning Commissioners the opportunity to hear findings from the process thus far and to provide input on the work to come.

6. ELS/EMC will participate in a workshop with the City Council once the Planning Commission workshop is completed. The team will work collaboratively with council members to discuss options and outcomes.

7. ELS/EMC will participate in a City Council presentation outlining the community and user input, summarize the workshop process, and present the Civic Center Vision Report.

DELIVERABLES:
• Survey results from both community and user surveys.
• Report outlining community outreach meetings.
• Civic Center Vision Report.

MEETINGS: up to ten (10) total meetings, including community meetings, one (1) Planning Commission meeting, and two (2) City Council meetings.

TASK 4–MASTER PLAN DESIGN: 10 Months
Based on what ELS/EMC learned from the existing civic center analysis, stakeholder and community meetings, the team will develop a detailed vision concept for the Gilroy Civic Center redevelopment.

This will outline the components of the final master plan and establish which programmatic elements are preferred. With the vision developed, the team will embark on designing at least three Civic Center alternatives that meet the requirements developed in the vision. These will focus on creating a town center and hub of civic activity that connect with the city’s broader fabric and position the civic center redevelopment as a new destination. Included in this effort are the following tasks:
• Land survey: The team will survey the site to establish an effective base for the project as our work moves into the design phases. This City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 50

7.3 p. 101 of 168
will include property lines, building locations, utility infrastructure and other site features.
• Circulation study: Critical to all site design is an understanding of how the site’s modes of circulation. This includes micro-modal, bike, pedestrian, cars, delivery trucks, and public transit. Site access and circulation review will be conducted to determine the adequacy of the proposed site layouts and to identify access and circulation issues for improvement. This will include a qualitative review of the internal roadway layout and access points to the surrounding roadway system and a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site’s driveways. The review will focus on the adequacy of site access points based on overall anticipated trip generation, considering the following:
› sight distance and vehicle queues at site access driveways, › driveway locations, traffic control requirements, alignment, and dimensions
› on-site layout and circulation
› large vehicle access and circulation
› pedestrian access and circulation
The circulation analysis of the final site layouts will be included as part of the optional Transportation Analysis completed for the Project’s EIR. This study will be provided as a separate document for Planning Commission review.
• Parking alternatives study: The ideal location for parking areas— potentially combining and relocating the site’s existing seven lots into a more efficient lot or structure—will be critical to success of the Civic Center. The team will assess quantity and type, targeting the most efficient parking system for different modes of transportation. Their analysis will estimate the recommended number of parking spaces that should be provided for inclusion in the Master Plan, based on the planned program, count data, City standards, and potential for shared parking.
• Open space study: Great civic spaces begin with the creation of an interconnected circulation system and a structure of differentlysized open spaces that share characteristics and sitewide connections. Our study will weigh the benefits of consolidating the program against the desired outdoor amenities and their overall cost. Open spaces resulting from this project will become significant public assets, available to residents year round. They are key to the success of this master plan.
• Phasing Study and Construction Sequencing Plan: Our team will explore how to keep facilities open during construction, adopting a phased approach that supports existing buildings, limits overall disruption, and provides adequate parking throughout the site’s transformation. Based on these findings, the team will make a recommendation for sequencing construction in ways that limit overall disruption to facilities.
• Site master plan: The final plan for the project will adopt this consideration for phasing while showing the final build-out of the campus once completed. The master plan will reflect a full integration of sustainable design practices and will ensure that all storm water requirements are met sitewide.
• Building location alternatives: Accounting for the varied conditions within and immediately adjacent to the site, the ELS team will develop potential alternate locations and options for facilities based on how the site master plan progresses through construction sequencing.
• Architecture: ELS will develop architectural concepts that capture Gilroy’s particular civic identity and values while reflecting sustainable design strategies. The final architectural designs will show exterior building materials, color renderings, and context including parking and landscape.
• Community outreach: The ELS team will participate in at least five (5) community meetings to gather input on the vision and design options. The team will keep the public informed on the project’s progress by assisting the City in writing monthly website postings and quarterly articles . The team will prepare surveys that will be coordinated with the other community outreach efforts.
• Council input: Once the team has received input from the community and revised our plans and concepts based on those comments, the team will attend a City Council workshop to receive feedback on our progress and provide additional direction. • Floor plans: The ELS team will develop floor plans based on the massing approved through the community and council process.

These plans will be developed based on the Task 3 space needs assessment, reflecting departmental aspirations. The team will meet again with individual departments to confirm findings of the needs assessment and to comment on preliminary building layouts followed by a workshop for all departments. The team will deliver a set of approved floor plans and color renderings that show the building entries and other key features.
• Preliminary landscape plan: Starting early in Task 4, and working concurrently with ELS, SWA Group will develop landscape plans that incorporate the civic spaces discussed in the needs assessment and public process. These will be scaled and designed to accommodate the types of community events that the City of Gilroy wishes to hold, and will integrate seamlessly with the master plan and architectural design process.
• Sustainability: As a leader in sustainable design, ELS will work with all consultants on a sitewide holistic approach to creating an environmentally conscious campus with the resilience necessary to allow for long-term success. Using LEED Platinum as a baseline, the team will work individually with our building-system engineers to identify the most effective and efficient building operations.

The team will develop a conceptual LEED scorecard that shows the best course to achieving LEED Platinum and Net Zero energy consumption.
• Final site master plan: Once the above studies and tasks are completed, the team will generate a final site master plan that represents the culmination of the master plan process. During this time, the team will meet with City Council in a workshop setting twice to receive comments and direction.
• Master Plan Report: The ELS/EMC team will prepare a final report for adoption by City Council. This report will describe the full planning process and incorporate all relevant documents, including all deliverables listed below. The report will include information on the process and key decision points so that future planners can understand the rationale for our decisions.

DELIVERABLES:
• Complete Land Survey
• 3 Land Use Alternative Diagrams
• Circulation Study
• Parking Alternatives Study
• Site Master Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Open Space Plan
• LEED Scorecard
• Phasing Plan
• Construction Sequencing Plan
• Building Location Alternatives
• Architectural Building Massing Designs
• Architectural Floorplans
• Final Site Master Plan
• Master Plan Report
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 51

7.3 p. 102 of 168
MEETINGS: up to eight (8) total meetings including a departmental workshop, meetings with individual departments and community meetings, three (3) City Council meetings.

Program Environmental Impact Report: 12 Months
The RFP indicates that the City of Gilroy anticipates that preparation of a program EIR may be appropriate CEQA documentation and process for the master plan update. EMC Planning Group will review the draft master plan update, once it is available, and will make a recommendation as to whether a more appropriate process, such as a mitigated negative declaration, would be appropriate. This may depend on how the master plan update treats the historic Wheeler Auditorium.

The following scope of work is proposed:

Task AProject Management/Consultation
This task includes coordinating staff, general management and administration, coordinating with City staff, ELS and the consulting team, and providing CEQA consultation for City staff. This includes up to five (5) hours of meetings.

Task BTribal Consultation
This task includes preparing letters to the tribes offering consultation under AB52 and CEQA. This includes up to two (2) hours of meetings.

EMC Planning Group has assisted Gilroy staff with tribal consultation on other projects.

Task C Notice of Preparation
EMC Planning Group will prepare the notice of preparation (NOP) that will be released prior to preparation of the EIR to solicit feedback from public agencies on the scope and content of the EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. A draft NOP will be sent as a PDF to the City for review and comment. EMC Planning Group will incorporate any and all comments into the final NOP, which will be provided to the City for their submittal to the State Clearinghouse.

This proposal assumes that the City will post the NOP with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse and will send copies to recipients on the City’s distribution list. If desired, EMC Planning Group can assist with this effort for an additional fee.

Task DAdministrative Draft Program EIR
The administrative draft EIR will include the following sections:
• Table of Contents: A table of contents will be included to assist the reader in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues, as well as a listing of tables, figures, and appendices.
• Introduction: This section of the EIR will address the purpose of preparing the EIR, the impact methodology, the EIR process, and terminology.
• Summary: The summary will include a project description summary, each significant effect with proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would reduce or avoid that effect, areas of controversy known to the City of Gilroy including issues raised by agencies and the public, and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.
• Environmental Setting: This section will include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Gilroy Civic Center and the broader built environment. This environmental setting constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which an environmental impact will be determined to be significant. The purpose of this requirement is to give Gilroy’s public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts. The setting will also include the existing number of employees at the Civic Center and the documented number of visitors.
• Project Description: The project description will present each of the components of the master plan update, focusing on those changes that would determine the environmental impacts. Maps, figures and tables will be used as appropriate.

The master plan update objectives will be clearly defined, which will assist in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project and will discuss the project benefits.

The project description will also include a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements required by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies.
• Air Quality: In addition to possible demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings, the master plan update has the potential to allow for an increase in the number of employees and visitors to the Civic Center, all of which could result in significant air quality impacts.

This section of the EIR will address whether the project would:
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
• Emission Modeling: The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) will be used to quantify criteria air pollutant emissions volumes generated from construction activities and from project operational activities. The model assumptions and methodology will be described in the initial study and the modeled results will be presented in appendices of the document. Three model runs will be conducted to quantify: 1) operational emissions under existing conditions; 2) unmitigated project construction and operational emissions; and 3) operational emissions under a mitigated project scenario, if necessary.
• Air Quality Analysis: The City of Gilroy is in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (the “air district”). The air district’s 2022 CEQA Guidelines provide a framework for assessing air quality impacts from land use projects.

This section of the EIR will first address whether the master plan update would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. The volume of criteria air pollutant emissions generated, potential generation of and potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, and consistency with regional air quality plans will then be evaluated to determine impact significance based on air district thresholds of significance. If significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be presented to lessen or potentially avoid impact significance.

Air district documents, policies, and regulatory requirements will be reviewed and a brief description of the air basin’s physical and climatological characteristics will be provided.
• Biological Resources: With the exception of one residential parcel, the approximately 14-acre Civic Center site is currently a developed, urban area, with minimal habitat for special-status species. The Civic Center does include a substantial number of existing trees that provide habitat for nesting birds, which are protected during the nesting season.

This section of the EIR will address potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats that may be protected, applying the Habitat Conservation Plan to the project.
• Cultural Resources: The existing civic center is made of up several different buildings: City Hall, City Hall Annex, Wheeler Gymnasium, Police Department Headquarters, Gilroy Senior City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 52

7.3 p. 103 of 168
Center, Gilroy Library, and four single family residential homes. The Wheeler Gymnasium is the only building that is currently on the Gilroy historic resources list. Some of the older buildings, such as City Hall, the City Hall Annex, and the Senior Center, may be old enough for evaluation to determine whether the buildings could be considered historic, recognizing that the City may have already completed this analysis for other purposes.

According to General Plan EIR Figure 3.5-1, the civic center is in a low archaeological sensitivity zone. There is always the possibility of uncovering significant archaeological resources during grounddisturbing activities.

This section of the EIR will address whether the master plan update would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource, or disturb any Native American human remains. The scope of work includes obtaining an updated records search of significant historic resources from the Northwest Information Center. Although it is unknown at this time whether the master plan update will include building demolition or alteration, this proposal also includes a budget for the historical evaluation of up to two on-site buildings that may be considered historic and that may be altered or demolished during implementation of the master plan update. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions: In addition to possible demolition of existing buildings and construction of new buildings, the master plan update has the potential to allow for an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the number of employees and visitors to the Civic Center, all of which could result in significant impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.

This section of the EIR will address whether the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The air district’s current Greenhouse Gas (GHG) impact analysis guidance, found in the 2022 CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, provides that GHG impacts of typical residential, commercial, and office projects can be found to be less than significant if the project is consistent with a qualified plan for reducing GHG emissions.

However, the City of Gilroy has not prepared a qualified plan against which consistency of the proposed project can be assessed. In lieu of an available qualified plan, the air district’s performance standard-based approach for evaluating impacts will be applied.

The air district has determined that projects which meets the following performance standards would have a less than significant GHG impact: 1) applicant commits to installing no permanent natural gas infrastructure to support the project (the project will be all electric and use no natural gas); 2) the applicant commits to meeting the Tier 2 electric vehicle support infrastructure standards in the latest version of the California Green Building Standards Code; 3) the project energy impacts are found to be less than significant; and 4) the project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact.

The master plan update is not anticipated to include residential, commercial or office uses beyond the civic center office use.

Nevertheless, operations of existing and proposed municipal institutional uses would generate GHGs from similar sources as the other noted uses, including vehicular sources and building energy sources. Therefore, the air district guidance is deemed to be applicable for the proposed project.

The proposed project will be reviewed to determine if it meets either or both of the first two performance standards. If not, conformance with these standards will be required as mitigation.

The significance of energy impacts will be summarized, as will the results of the VMT analysis, to make a final determination about GHG impact significance.
• Transportation: Hexagon will complete a VMT report to be included in the EIR. The VMT report will be completed in accordance with CEQA requirements.

Pursuant to SB 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the current CEQA Guidelines Update (Technical Advisory on Evaluation Impacts in CEQA) in late 2018, which proposes VMT as the replacement metric for LOS in the context of CEQA. In accordance with CEQA, all proposed land use and transportation projects are required to analyze transportation as a component of environmental review using VMT.

Since the City of Gilroy has yet to formally adopt its own Cityspecific guidelines for the CEQA evaluation of projects based on VMT, the City relies on OPR’s VMT analysis guidelines and impact threshold recommendations as they work towards establishing their own guidelines. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, a VMT assessment will be completed based on OPR’s guidelines and the final project information obtained from the site development and review phase.
• Tribal Cultural Resources: According to General Plan EIR Figure

3.5-1, the civic center is in a low archaeological sensitivity zone.

However, there is always the possibility of uncovering significant archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities.

This section of the EIR will summarize the tribal consultation process, further discussed in Task 2, Tribal Consultation, above, and present any mitigation measures that may be determined through that process.
• No Impacts or Impacts Anticipated to be Less than Significant:

In addition to the environmental topic area discussed above, it is expected that there would be no impact, or that impacts would be less than significant, in the following areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

Each of these topic areas will be evaluated and discussed in this section of the EIR. If it is determined that a significant impact could occur associated with one or more of these topics, a full analysis would be conducted.
• Cumulative Impacts: This section will address the project’s contribution to cumulative city-wide environmental impacts associated with build-out of the general plan and determine whether the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.
• Significant and Unavoidable Impacts: This section will summarize those impacts evaluated in any previous sections that are significant and cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented. • Growth Inducing Impacts: This section will discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.
• Alternatives: This section will describe and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and will evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Up to three alternatives, including the “No Project” alternative, are included in the budget. The alternatives will be determined in consultation with City staff and the ELS team.
• Organization and Persons Contacted: This section will identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 53

7.3 p. 104 of 168
individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR.
• Sources: This section will include a listing of the sources used in preparation of the EIR.
• Appendices: Appendices will be included, where appropriate.

Task E Public Review Draft Program EIR
EMC Planning Group will prepare the public review draft EIR after reviewing and incorporating all City comments on the administrative draft EIR. EMC Planning Group will electronically provide one (1) PDF copy of the public review draft EIR and appendices for the City’s use in the distribution process. No hard copies will be provided. The City is also responsible for uploading the public review draft EIR to the City’s website. EMC Planning Group can help with this process, if requested.

Task F Administrative Final Program EIR
Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, EMC Planning Group will evaluate the comments received on the public review draft EIR and prepare written responses in consultation with City staff.

EMC Planning Group will prepare an administrative final EIR, which will include comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR, proposed responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, and any other information to be added by the City.

The budget accommodates responding to up to ten (10) comment letters. If the level of effort needed to respond to comments exceeds that amount, a contract amendment may be required.

Task G Final Program EIR
EMC Planning Group will prepare a final EIR, addressing comments by City staff, and provide a PDF copy to the City to provide to those agencies commenting on the draft EIR.

Task H Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A draft and final mitigation monitoring and reporting program will also be prepared.

Task I CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EMC Planning Group will prepare draft and final CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations for review and approval by City staff.

Task J Public Hearings
EMC Planning Group will attend two public hearings, one Planning Commission and one City Council, to answer questions on the environmental analysis and documentation.

Task K Notice of Determination
EMC Planning Group will prepare the notice of determination for the City staff to file with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse.

DELIVERABLE: Program Level Environmental Impact Report
TASK 5 – MASTER PLAN ADOPTION: 6 Weeks
The ELS/EMC team will assist the City in writing a recommended phasing plan and financing plan that together spell out the costs for each development phase. The draft Final Master Plan and draft Final Financing Plan will be presented to Council for consideration of adoption no later than May 30, 2026.

DELIVERABLES:
• Draft Final Master Plan
• Financing Strategy Plan
• Project Delivery Method Analysis and Recommendation
TASK 6 – PROJECT FINANCING: 12 Months
The ELS/EMC has expertise in grant research and writing, Public/ Private Partnerships, and the process of developing and issuing General Obligation Bonds. To identify the funding approach, the team will complete the following steps:
• Cost estimate: The team will start this phase by preparing a cost estimate for each recommended alternative that is inclusive of all hard costs and soft costs. The team will work with the City in identifying the projected City staffing needs and all required approvals.
• Financing Recommendations: ELS/EMC, working with our financing strategist Hayat Brown, will advise city officials on financing strategies and financial approaches to support the City of Gilroy’s Civic Center project. With a deep understanding of traditional and alternative project delivery methods, we will evaluate a range of suitable options, including Public-Private Partnerships (P3), traditional, and design-build strategies to ensure alignment with the city’s fiscal and project-specific goals. Multiple California Civic Center projects have benefited from a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain delivery model, in which a private consortium finances, executes, and operates facilities long term. We will explore this option to identify an optimal approach to delivering the project. Our analysis and recommendations will consider each approach’s benefits, risks, and long-term implications, empowering the city to make informed decisions that optimize funding, enhance project delivery, and ensure sustainable, long-term benefits for the community. • Funding Opportunities: Our team will identify a range of funding opportunities available to the city, including federal and state grants, municipal bonds, revenue-backed financing, value capture tools, such as tax increment financing or assessment districts. Each funding source will be evaluated for its terms, potential impact, and alignment with the city’s project objectives. Using this information, we will craft a detailed analysis of each option, highlighting potential benefits, limitations, and compliance requirements to facilitate the City Council’s decision-making process. By outlining viable, impactful funding solutions, we aim to help the city ensure long term project feasibility.
• Project delivery: Having led project teams through designbid-build, design-build and public-private partnership models, the ELS/EMC team is ideally suited to provide professional recommendations regarding which path most closely meets the City’s needs, ranking the relative value of potential approaches. • Bond assistance: The team will work with the City staff to identify funding potential through General Obligation Bonds, providing professional assistance in preparation of the ballot measure language and election documents and promoting the bond to the public through informational material for distribution to voters by the City. Included in this effort:
› Assessing the community’s ability to pay based on bond proposals;
› Gathering information regarding rating agency factors and assessing data relating to determine general rating estimation.

Identifying ways to maximize the final rating for the sale of bonds;
› Identifying funding priorities if bond support is not available.

Identifying the highest rated components of the plan with the highest likelihood of approval.
› Working with the City and consultants/counsel to complete the sale of bonds if approved by voters.

DELIVERABLES:
• Comprehensive financial options plan
• Development of general obligation bond documents and
associated support for November 2026 election
TASK 7 – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE: 18 Months
If the City of Gilroy requests assistance during development team selection and construction, the ELS/EMC team is prepared to provide experienced guidance. Having delivered projects of this scale City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 54

7.3 p. 105 of 168
previously, we are well versed in the challenges faced by complex projects when the site remains an active location for city services.

Upon request, the team will provide the following:
• Temporary services relocation: the ELS/EMC team is prepared to help the City coordinate the temporary relocation as part of the construction process. This may include studying potential relocation spaces, working with the selected construction team to develop a timeline for relocations to minimize disruption, and making recommendations on how the City can keep the facilities accessible throughout construction.
• Plan review: ELS holds on-call contracts with numerous municipalities across the Bay Area and is prepared to provide plan review upon request to ensure that the contract documents fulfill the City’s goals and are compliant with local and state codes. The team can assess budgets and operational costs to ensure they are within expectations.
• Permit assistance: ELS can work with the City to ensure that the construction team gets permitted as required per local requirements.
• Quality assurance: Upon request, ELS can assist the city in confirming that all required testing and inspection compliance can be met for the project’s construction process.
• Sustainability review: Through our experience specifying thousands of sustainable building materials over the course of countless projects, ELS can make recommendations on proposed materials and sustainable design processes.
• Certificate of Occupancy: The ELS team is prepared to assist the City and selected construction team in understanding which specific issues, if any, are contributing to a delay in the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; we can also advise on how the project could utilize a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to stay on schedule as minor issues at project closeout are resolved.

DELIVERABLES:
• Assist the city in the development team selection process • Provide bid-support
• Provide consulting to the selected teams as requested by the City.

TASK 8 – PROJECT CLOSEOUT: 1 Month
Once the project is complete and the project is ready for move-in, the ELS/EMC team is prepared to support the City’s move into the modernized Civic Center. As part of that effort, it is critical that the contractor turns over all manuals and provides all necessary training for building operations. It is our goal that, from day one and for decades to come, the City of Gilroy can use these new facilities as efficiently and sustainably as possible.

QUALITY CONTROL
At ELS, the caliber of our quality-control practices directly relates to our culture of continuous improvement. Through a highly structured QC process, we minimize errors, mitigate risks, and deliver high-quality documents that meet regulatory requirements and fulfill or even surpass client expectations.

Throughout our firm’s 57-year history and across hundreds of projects, ELS has become known for its remarkably low staff turnover, which, among other benefits, helps to maintain a sense of institutional knowledge across the firm’s work. Our Quality Control process is critical to ensuring the firm’s trademark technical accuracy, code compliance, and design quality. The process is organized into the following parts:
• Document Control System: ELS has Implemented a robust document control system to manage versions, revisions, approvals, and design options within BIM software as well as our folder structure. This system ensures that people working on the project can access the right materials efficiently, while our BIM standards for drawing coordination ensure a consistent final product. ELS uses quality control tools to systematically evaluate documents for errors, omissions, and deviations from requirements. This includes the following reviews for each project:
› Technical Review: Senior architects within the organization that are outside the specific structure of the project
conduct a thorough technical review to identify gaps in the documentation and ensure consistency and continuity across the drawings and specifications at the conclusion of each project phase.
› Management Review: Project managers or designated
management personnel review documents to ensure they
align with project goals, client requirements, and regulatory standards.
› Peer Review: In some cases, such as in complex projects with unusual conditions, peer reviews are conducted where colleagues not directly involved in the project examine documentation to provide additional perspectives and identify potential errors or inconsistencies.
• Verification and Validation: Prior to submitting final documents, the team’s Project Architect verifies that exiting calculations, building areas and heights and other technical data are accurate and reliable.
• Revision and Correction Process: The ELS team marks up projects on a common drawing set, saved in Bluebeam, to which the whole team has access. A group collaboration helps younger staff learn and contribute, while reducing conflicting direction from multiple reviewers. The team then works collectively to pick up the comments, with the project manager responding as questions arise.

The Bluebeam markup is distributed to consultants so they can coordinate their work to any changes.
• Final Approval and Sign-off: Once all comments have been addressed and consultant work coordinated, the team obtains a final approval and sign-off from the project manager once documents have completed the QC review and all necessary revisions and corrections have been addressed.
• Documentation and Record Keeping: For each project at ELS, we maintain comprehensive records of all QC activities, including the Bluebeam review comments, revisions, approvals, and consultant coordination. This ensures that documentation is well organized, accessible, and securely stored for future reference and audit purposes.
• Training and Education: ELS believes that the strength of the company lies in its employees. Maintaining the intellectual capital and maintaining a history of teams working consistently with the same clients builds confidence and allows us to refine and improve our project delivery. For new employees, ELS provides training and education on document development and review to ensure they understand and adhere to QC procedures and standards.

City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 55

7.3 p. 106 of 168
Project Elevate Retail Mixed-Use Master Plan | Elk Grove, CA + proposed timeline 5

7.3 p. 107 of 168
8-Nov
15-Nov22-Nov29-Nov6-Dec13-Dec20-Dec27-Dec3-Jan10-Jan17-Jan24-Jan31-Jan7-Feb14-Feb21-Feb28-Feb7-Mar14-Mar21-Mar28-Mar4-Apr11-Apr18-Apr25-Apr2-May9-May16-May23-May30-May6-Jun13-Jun20-Jun27-Jun4-Jul11-Jul18-Jul25-Jul1-Aug8-Aug15-Aug22-Aug29-Aug5-Sep12-Sep19-Sep26-Sep3-Oct10-Oct17-Oct24-Oct31-Oct7-Nov14-Nov21-Nov28-Nov5-Dec12-Dec19-Dec26-Dec2-Jan9-Jan16-Jan23-Jan30-Jan6-Feb13-Feb20-Feb27-Feb6-Mar13-Mar20-Mar27-Mar3-Apr10-Apr17-Apr24-Apr1-May8-May15-May22-May29-May5-Jun12-Jun19-Jun26-Jun3-Jul10-Jul17-Jul24-Jul31-Jul A. Project Initiation
1 Develop outline and timeline of Civic Center Master Plan 2 kick-off meeting
3 Site Survey
B. Current Conditions Assessment
1 Review, analyze and summarize available inventory
of key planning documents (e.g., land use, traffic, etc.) 2 Inventory and Assessment of Civic Center facilities and nearby owned properties.
3 Provide a general review of available policy and
regulations of relevant city documents
C. Needs Assessment
1 Develop stakeholder surveys and materials to assist in gathering city government and community and desires.
2 Develop a strategy and schedule for a minimum of five community workshops - each event an opportunity to gather input stakeholder input 3 Develop of roster of stakeholders and contact information for each; include Gilroy residents, Civic Center users/customers, City Staff, City officials, etc. 4 Develop a plan and target dates for a maximum of 10 total meetings - (Including Public Workshops (5), Planning Commission (1) and City Council (2) D. Master Plan Design
Initial Visioning with City Leadership
1 Visioning Session #1 - With City Staff, City Consultants and City Council For this initial session, we propose a two-part workshop: Part 1 is presentation and discussion in a conference room setting and Part 2 takes place on site - a touring the Gilroy Civic Center property.

Concept Studies - Based upon Visioning Session #1, Develop a range of Concept Studies to share and spark debate and dialogue in Visioning Session #2
Develop a range of Concept Studies, up to 10
for Visioning Session #2
2 Visioning Session #2 - With City Staff, City Consultants and City Council Present up 5 to 7 concepts.

Based upon Visioning Session #2, narrow
the second round of concept studies to 5 concept ideas that will be shared in the first Community Engagement Workshop
Develop and prepare selected 5 concepts for presentation at Community Engagement Workshop #1
Visioning with Gilroy Community
1 Community Engagement Workshop #1
Based upon results for Visioning Session #2, ELS will present 5 concept ideas and take comment during a charette styled critique Update the concept ideas with further refinements based upon charrette results from Workshop #1, including master plan systems such as circulation, open space, infrastructure for presentation at Workshop #2. 2 Community Engagement Workshop #2
Based upon results for Workshop #1, ELS will present
5 concept ideas with further refinements, including various master plan systems such as circulation, open space, infrastructure.

ELS will facilitate a charette styled critique to gather input on each concept Continue to develop 5 concept ideas with further refinements, including various landscape components such as plazas, paseos and streetscape concepts for presentation and feedback at Workshop #3. 3 Community Engagement Workshop #3
Based upon results from Workshop #2, ELS will present
5 concept ideas with further refinements including landscape components such as plazas and paseos, streetscape concepts and architectural massing. ELS will facilitate a charette styled critique to gather input on each concept
Continue developing the 5 concept ideas with further refinements including phasing strategies for each concept. Present findings at Workshop #4 4 Community Engagement Workshop #4
Based upon results from Workshop 3, ELS will present
5 concept ideas with further refinements. This session
will focus on phasing strategies of the 5 candidate
concepts. ELS will facilitate a charette styled
critique to gather input on each concept
In preparation for Workshop #5, 5 concepts, develop
a system for the community to rank candidate concepts in order of preference 5 Community Engagement Workshop #5
Based upon results from Workshop 4, ELS will present
5 concept ideas with further refinements. This session
will focus on reviewing of the 5 concepts that
were developed over a 5-Part Community Engagement Series, and ranking them in order of preference. The ranking results will be shared with City Council, whose task it is to narrow the 5 concepts to 2 or 3 for advancement to the next level of study
Based on the results of Workshop #5, prepare a recap of the process that led to the 5 candidate concepts for presentation for City Council.

Final Visioning Steps with Gilroy Community and City Leadership 1 City Council - Concept Master Plan - Selection of 2 or 3 Final Candidates Based upon the results of Community Workshop #5, ELS
will present all five concept master plans to City Council, along with Gilroy Community's ranking of the five concepts.

City Council will then deliberate and select 2 or 3 concepts to advance for further study.

Prepare presentation for City Council on the selection of a preferred concept.

Presentation will take into account comments from previous City Council session 2 City Council - Concept Master Plan - Selection of Preferred Master Plan Based upon the results of Previous City Council session and direction, ELS will present 2 to 3 alternatives in more refined detail, including cost, phasing and high level financing strategies.

The goal of this session is for council to select a preferred Master Plan Alternative.

ELS will collect information and direction and proceed accordingly Based upon City Council's selection of a preferred Master Plan Concept, begin final refinements and steps to initiate critical CEQA efforts.
3 City Council - Preferred Master Plan Presentation
Based upon the results of Previous City Council session and direction, ELS will present the preferred Master Plan Alternative in more refined detail, including design imagery, and updates and refinements to cost, phasing and high level financing strategies.

The goal of this session is for council to make final comments and give ELS additional direction before critical CEQA analysis
Wrap up final master planning documentation and assist
with CEQA Efforts - Prepare Final Master Plan Report for Adoption F. Project Financing
Prepare ROM Cost Estimate for the Preferred Master Plan Assume a phased implementation and build-out timeline TBD.

Provide a range of financing options
including P3 and others - Develop and memo report with an overview of such options Identify General Obligation Bonds process
E. Environmental Review
Program Level EIR that covers all elements of the Master Plan Work initiates when Master Plan Alternates are narrowed to three Traffic Impact Analysis
Work initiates when Master Plan Alternates are narrowed to three. Work will become more focused once the preferred master plan is determined CEQA Doc's circulated for Public Review
Program Level EIR
Response to Comments
1 month
Planning Commission
Review
City Council Certification
prior to adoption of Master Plan
Appeal
Period
G. Master Plan Adoption
Formulate a recommendation, in concert with city staff, for the Final Master Plan, including phasing and financing strategies.

Present draft Final Master Plan and Final Financing Approach to City Council for adoption on May 30, 2026.

H. Project Development, Design Engineering and Construction (Timeline TBD) I. Project Closeout (Timeline TBD)

MEETINGS
Project Coordination
Civic Center Development Team (CCDT)
Community Workshops (Public Sessions)
Planning Commission
City Council - Work Sessions and Regular City Council Presentations 2024 2025 2026
MAY 15, 2026 - CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIES CEQA DOC'S
MAY 30, 2026 - CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS MASTER PLAN

PROJECT INITIATION

CURRENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

MASTER PLAN DESIGN PROCESS

PROJECT FINANCING

ENVIRONMENTAL

MASTER PLAN ADOPTION

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDIES STARTING IN ADVANCE OF BASE CEQA

PROPOSED TIMELINE - DETAILED

CEQA APPEAL PERIOD

CEQA - RESPONSE PERIOD
CIRCULATION PERIOD - 45 DAYS

PROGRAM LEVEL EIR

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Proposed Timeline - Detailed
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 57

7.3 p. 108 of 168
8-Nov
15-Nov22-Nov29-Nov6-Dec13-Dec20-Dec27-Dec3-Jan10-Jan17-Jan24-Jan31-Jan7-Feb14-Feb21-Feb28-Feb7-Mar14-Mar21-Mar28-Mar4-Apr11-Apr18-Apr25-Apr2-May9-May16-May23-May30-May6-Jun13-Jun20-Jun27-Jun4-Jul11-Jul18-Jul25-Jul1-Aug8-Aug15-Aug22-Aug29-Aug5-Sep12-Sep19-Sep26-Sep3-Oct10-Oct17-Oct24-Oct31-Oct7-Nov14-Nov21-Nov28-Nov5-Dec12-Dec19-Dec26-Dec2-Jan9-Jan16-Jan23-Jan30-Jan6-Feb13-Feb20-Feb27-Feb6-Mar13-Mar20-Mar27-Mar3-Apr10-Apr17-Apr24-Apr1-May8-May15-May22-May29-May5-Jun12-Jun19-Jun26-Jun3-Jul10-Jul17-Jul24-Jul31-Jul A. Project Initiation
B. Current Conditions Assessment
C. Needs Assessment
D. Master Plan Design
F. Project Financing
E. Environmental Review
CEQA Doc's circulated for Public Review
Program Level EIR
Response to Comments
1 month
Planning Commission
Review
City Council Certification
prior to adoption of Master Plan
Appeal
Period
G. Master Plan Adoption
Formulate a recommendation, in concert with city staff, for the Final Master Plan, including phasing and financing strategies.

Present draft Final Master Plan and Final Financing Approach to City Council for adoption on May 30, 2026.

H. Project Development, Design Engineering and Construction (Timeline TBD) I. Project Closeout (Timeline TBD)

PROJECT INITIATION

CURRENT CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT

NEEDS ASSESSMENT

MASTER PLAN DESIGN PROCESS

PROJECT FINANCING

ENVIRONMENTAL

MASTER PLAN ADOPTION

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION STUDIES STARTING IN ADVANCE OF BASE CEQA

PROPOSED TIMELINE - DETAILED

CEQA APPEAL PERIOD

CEQA - RESPONSE PERIOD
CIRCULATION PERIOD - 45 DAYS

TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION PROGRAM LEVEL EIR
Proposed Timeline - Critical Path Overview
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 58

7.3 p. 109 of 168
The District at Latimer Square | Bloomington, IN
+ pricing 6

7.3 p. 110 of 168
Fee Proposal
The ELS/EMC team has assembled a team of highly qualified consultants that range from internationally recognized designers to the state’s leading public bond strategist. The requested scope is broken into core requirements that can be scoped and priced based on our experience. This work will run from project kick-off through the adoption of the master plan, including the CEQA process, and is expected to prepare the project for the financing phase, selection of a development team, construction, and project closeout/move-in.

The level of effort required in these phases is subject to such a wide range of variables that providing a budget is not currently feasible.

For a solution, we recommend an approach that involves making further cost decisions at or around the 18-month mark, at which point the scope can be accurately priced according to the project characteristics at that time. The ELS/EMC team is staffed and prepared to deliver the base scope for the Gilroy Civic Center master plan for an anticipated hourly budget of $749,899. Please see the following page for the specific breakdown of those costs.

REIMBURSABLES
The base budget provided above will be billed hourly and excludes reimbursables. For this work, the City of Gilroy should account for $20,000 in reimbursables. These include printing of documents and boards for community meetings, local travel and other typical project expenses.

ADDITIONAL TASKS
The ELS/EMC team is excited to see the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan through to completion and can provide assistance on an hourly basis as requested by the City. In addition, we are staffed and prepared to deliver scope on an hourly basis for the following:
• Task 6 - Project Financing
• Task 7 - Project Development, Design Engineering, and Construction Assistance
• Task 8 - Project Closeout
Once the master plan direction has been defined, the ELS/EMC team is happy to provide an informed budget estimate for these tasks that will provide best value to the city. By providing this budget later in the process, we avoid charging fees for studies and options that may not be necessary to fulfill the project’s development or financing.

ELS/EMC is always happy to discuss different options for delivering the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan to ensure we address only what the City requires, without unnecessary expenditures.

EXCLUSIONS/PROVISIONS
The following items of work are excluded from our services:

1. Unless otherwise provided, the Architect and its Consultants shall have no responsibility for the discovery, presences, handling, removal or disposal of, or exposure of persons to, hazardous materials in any form at the Project site, including but not limited to asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), or other toxic substances.

2. Geotechnical analysis and soils report, as these services are not covered by our professional practice insurance policy. This also includes any soils remediation in connection with site characteristics including, but not limited to, liquefaction and water table.

4. Obtaining and paying for construction permits.

5. ADA and/or a CASp survey of existing conditions.

City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 60

7.3 p. 111 of 168

FEE SCHEDULE
Mark Hulbert
David Masenten
Principal In Charge
Kenneth Hasagawa
Design Principal
Susan Vutz
Project Manager
Lauren Wynveen
Project Architect
Jose Rodriguez
Designer
Teri Wissler Adam
Principal in Charge
Ron Sissem
Senior Principal
Stuart Poulter
Project Manager
Zane Mortensen
Associate Planner
Vanessa Potter
Registered Professional Archaeologist
Janet Walter
Principal Biologist
Rose Ashbach
Associate Biologist
Matt Puperello
GIS/Graphics Technician
Tiffany Robinson
Production Manager
Shannon Davi
Administrative Assistant
Principal
Associate Principal
Project Manager
Engineer/Survey Manager
Project Engineer/Survey
Tech IV
2 Man Survey
Mark Hulbert
Historical Architect
Marco Esposito
Principal
Al DeWitt
Associate
Xiaomeng Ma
Associate
Principal
Senior Associate
Associate
Admin
Director/Regional Director
Associate Director
Senior Cost Manager
Cost Manager
Director
SHB Lead
Consultant
Analyst
Allen Nudel
Principal in Charge
Engineer
Drafter
Gurdaver Singh
Principal
Mark Brown
Associate Principal
Engineering
Billing Rate $220 $220 $185 $175 $125 $295 $295 $205 $175 $145 $225 $170 $140 $125 $115 $302 $273 $260 $239 $195 $203 $365 $225 $286 $181 $137 $290 $270 $200 $120 $325 $250 $220 $195 $350 $225 $180 $165 $255 $215 $175 $340 $320 $290 Task 1 - Project Initiation

1.1 Kick-off Meeting 2 2 2 2 84 4

1.2 Project Outline and Timeframe 2 4 12
Subtotal Task A (Hours) 4 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 42 Subtotal Task A (Cost) $880 $440 $1,110 $350 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,700 $2,288 $724 $548 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,040 Task 2 -Current Conditions Assessment

2.1 Review Planning Documents 2 2 2 8 6 6 44 4

2.2 Assessment of Facilities 8 8 65 8 24 48 4 4 4 12 24 40

2.3 Policy and Regulation Analysis 4 8 44 4

2.4 Opportunities and Constraints Report 16 24 24 24 48 88 8

2.5 Topographic Survey 2 1 2 10 20
Subtotal Task B (Hours) 6 2 12 25 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 20 0 0 65 48 48 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 0 4 12 24 56 16 16 506 Subtotal Task B (Cost) $1,320 $440 $2,220 $4,375 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $546 $0 $2,390 $3,900 $0 $0 $14,625 $13,728 $8,688 $13,152 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,250 $1,800 $0 $1,020 $2,580 $4,200 $19,040 $5,120 $4,640 $109,034 Task 3 - Needs Assessment

3.1 Outreach Materials 4 8 8 40 80 8 88

3.2 Community Meetings 10 6 10 10 4 4 8 48 14

3.3 Stakeholder Meetings 10 10 10

3.4 Vision Report and Survey Results 8 16 40 60 80 8 33 Subtotal Task C (Hours) 32 30 68 120 80 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 56 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 000 0 446 Subtotal Task C (Cost) $7,040 $6,600 $12,580 $21,000 $10,000 $1,180 $0 $820 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,600 $16,016 $3,982 $1,096 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $675 $540 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,129 Task 4 - Master Plan Design

4.1 Master Plan Alternatives 4 8 8 40 120 4 20 80 40 30 80 40 2 2 4 20 12

4.2 Survey 48 98

4.3 Project Phasing Alternatives 8 4 24 40 22

4.4 Architectural Concepts 4 40 16 24 120 44

4.5 Floor Plan Options 4 24 16 80 22

4.6 Preliminary Landscape Plan 4 80 40 424

4.7 Sustainable Design Plan 8 4 16 24 10 80 2 10 10 1 8 20 40

4.8 Construction Sequencing Plan 16 8 6

4.9 Master Plan 4 16 40 20 200

4.10 Circulation Study 1 16 28 28 1

4.11 Parking Alternates Study 1 16 2 18 39 2 2

4.12 Open Space Plan 1 16 40

4.13 CEQA Analysis 2 8 55 8 330 40 27 2 10 20 18 20 10 24 30

4.14 Master Plan Report 8 4 20 20 80 4 8 20 1 2 4 2 88 8 Subtotal Task C (Hours) 45 80 92 196 504 55 8 330 40 27 2 10 20 18 20 4 20 4 88 40 9 8 0 140 160 320 16 78 117 2 0 0 0 0 2 28 28 13 4 20 12 16 28 48 2,652 Subtotal Task C (Cost) $9,900 $17,600 $17,020 $34,300 $63,000 $16,225 $2,360 $67,650 $7,000 $3,915 $450 $1,700 $2,800 $2,250 $2,300 $1,208 $5,460 $1,040 $21,032 $7,800 $1,827 $2,920 $0 $40,040 $28,960 $43,840 $4,640 $21,060 $23,400 $240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $700 $6,300 $5,040 $2,145 $1,020 $4,300 $2,100 $5,440 $8,960 $13,920 $501,862 Task 5 - Master Plan Adoption

5.1 Prepare Development Recommendation 8 40 40 164 22 2

5.2 Draft Final Master Plan 8 8 80 16 4 24 8 8 22
Subtotal Task C (Hours) 16 0 48 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 24 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 6 0 0 0 022 2 256 Subtotal Task C (Cost) $3,520 $0 $8,880 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $302 $1,638 $0 $956 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,864 $1,448 $1,096 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $350 $1,800 $1,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $680 $640 $580 $44,834 TOTAL ESTIMATED LABOR BUDGET $22,660 $25,080 $41,810 $60,025 $91,000 $17,405 $2,360 $68,470 $7,000 $3,915 $450 $1,700 $2,800 $2,250 $2,300 $1,510 $7,644 $1,040 $24,378 $11,700 $1,827 $2,920 $20,925 $78,936 $43,802 $59,732 $4,640 $21,060 $23,400 $240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,050 $11,025 $8,460 $2,145 $2,040 $6,880 $6,300 $25,160 $14,720 $19,140 BASE BUDGET PER FIRM/TOTAL $240,575 $108,650 $51,019 $20,925 $182,470 $0 $22,680 $15,220 $59,020 $749,899 Brightworks Forell Elsesser Guttmann &
Blaevoet
Subtotal
($)
$49,340
ELS Architecture EMC Planning Group BKF SWA Hexagon Cumming Group City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 61

7.3 p. 112 of 168
Rate Sheet

ELS ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN
Principals $ 230–300
Associate Principals $ 175–225
Associates $ 160–180
Professional Staff $ 90–160
Technical/Support Staff $ 85–160

EMC PLANNING GROUP
Senior Principal $ 295
Senior Planner $ 205
Associate Planner $ 175
Reg. Prof. Archaeologist $ 145
Principal Biologist $ 225.

Associate Biologist $ 170
Graphics $ 140
Production Manager $ 125
Admin./Production $ 115

SWA GROUP
Principal, Marco Esposito $ 286
Associate, Al Dewitt $ 181
Associate, Xiaomeng Ma $ 137
Design Staff $ 110-125

TRAMUTOLA
Political Strategists $ 350-450

HAYAT BROWN
Managing Director $ 420
Senior Director $ 350
Director $ 320
Manager $ 280
Senior Associate $ 240
Associate $ 210
Analyst $ 190
Technical Writer $ 135

HEXAGON
President $ 335
Principal $ 290
Senior Associate II $ 270
Senior Associate I $ 250
Associate II $ 225
Associate I $ 200
Planner/Engineer II $ 170
Planner/Engineer I $ 140
Admin/Graphics $ 120
Assistant Planner/Engineer $ 115
Technician $ 85

BKF ENGINEERS
Principal $ 302
Associate Principal $ 273
PM $ 260
Eng/Sur Mgr $ 239
Sr Eng/Sur $ 222
Project Eng/Sur $ 195
Design Eng/Sur $ 170
Tech IV $ 203
2-Man Survey $ 365

BRIGHTWORKS
Principal $ 300
Director $ 250
Lead $ 225
Senior Consultant $ 200
Senior Specialist/Senior Energy Analyst $ 200
Consultant $ 180
Specialist/Energy Analyst II $ 180
Analyst/Energy Analyst I $ 165
Coordinator $ 150
Administrative Support $ 100

PRESERVATION ARCHITECTURE
Mark Hulbert $ 225

FORELL/ELSESSER
Senior Principal $ 265
Principal $ 255-260
Research/Development Manager $ 240
Senior Engineer $ 195-240
Engineer $ 180-185
Designer $ 170-175
CADD/BIM Specialist $ 150-155
BIM Modeler $ 100
Senior Project Administration $ 130
Project Administration $ 80

GUTTMANN & BLAEVOET
Principal $ 340
Associate Principal $ 320
Senior Associate $ 290
Associate $ 280
Senior Engineer $ 260
Senior Building Performance Analyst $ 250
Cad Lead $ 225
Engineer Il $ 215
Engineer I $ 205
Building Performance Analyst $ 205
Designer Il $ 190
Designer I $ 180
Construction Administrator $ 155
Project Assistant $ 125

CUMMING
Executive/Senior Vice President $ 450
Managing Principal/Vice President $ 375
Managing Dir/Dir/Regional Dir $ 325
Associate Director $ 250
Senior Cost Manager $ 220
Cost Manager $ 195
Assistant Cost Manager/
Estimating Technician/Intern $ 135

CALIFORNIA CONSULTING
Senior Grant Writer/Grant Writer $ 150
Fees listed here are subject to increase annually for
cost-of-living escalation in the State of California.

City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 62

7.3 p. 113 of 168
Berkeley High School Extension | Berkeley, CA
7 + additional information

7.3 p. 114 of 168
Agreement Statement
ELS has reviewed the Gilroy standard contract and
takes no exception to the terms and conditions as provided.

Berkeley High School Extension
City of Gilroy | Civic Center Master Plan elsarch.com | 64

7.3 p. 115 of 168
elsarch.com

BERKELEY
2040 Addison Street
Berkeley, CA 94704
| 510.549.2929 LOS ANGELES
950 S. Grand Avenue, Ste 400
Los Angeles, CA 90015
| 213.348.1155 SACRAMENTO
800 Howe Ave Ste 330
Sacramento, CA 95825
| 916.301.4411 SAN DIEGO |
/
619.919.0620
3131 Camino Del Rio N, Ste 1030
San Diego, CA 92108

7.3 p. 116 of 168
-1-
City of Gilroy
Administration Department
Request for Proposals
Civic Center Master Plan Consultant
Services
No. 24-RFP-AD-506
ATTN: Bryce Atkins
City Of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6197
Proposals Due by: 4:00 pm Pacific Time,
Friday, October 18, 2024

7.3 p. 117 of 168
-2-
Request for Proposal
No. 24-RFP-AD-506
Notice is hereby given that the Purchasing Coordinator of the City of Gilroy at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020-6197 will receive proposal submittals via e-mail.

The City of Gilroy is soliciting proposals from firms to develop a new Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan for the redevelopment of Civic Center, as described in the attached Request for Proposals (RFP). Submittals will be accepted up until 4:00 PM, PST, Friday, October 18, 2024, via e-mail to the addresses specified in this RFP. Proposals received after that time and date will not be considered. The City of Gilroy accepts no responsibility if delivery is made to another e-mail address other than the one specified within this RFP. An evaluation team will review submitted proposals and select the best qualified firm based on the evaluation criteria and selection process outlined in the RFP.

The selected Consultant will then be recommended to the City Council for awarding of an agreement to conduct the work.

A free electronic copy of the RFP can be obtained by going to the City of Gilroy website, and selecting bid opportunities located under the Business and Development Services Tab, or directly by going to the following link: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/Bids.aspx).

Respectfully Requested,
Carina Baksa
Purchasing Coordinator

7.3 p. 118 of 168
-3-
RFP No. 24-RFP-AD-506
Request for Proposals for Civic Center Master Plan Consultant Services Table of Contents
Request for Proposal..........................................................................................................................2 Introduction and Project Description..................................................................................................4 Issuing Office .....................................................................................................................................4 Anticipated RFP Schedule...................................................................................................................5 Submission Date and Location............................................................................................................5 Protests.............................................................................................................................................6 Rejection of Proposals........................................................................................................................6 Partial Funding or Award....................................................................................................................6 Modification / Withdrawal.................................................................................................................6 Cancellation.......................................................................................................................................7 Duration of Proposals ........................................................................................................................7 Public Record.....................................................................................................................................7 Incurring Costs...................................................................................................................................7 Selection Process...............................................................................................................................7 Project Background............................................................................................................................7 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................................8 Proposal Contents............................................................................................................................18 Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring...........................................................................................21

7.3 p. 119 of 168
-4-
Introduction and Project Description
The City of Gilroy (City) is seeking proposals from qualified firms (Consultants) for the preparation of an updated, comprehensive Civic Center Master Plan to supersede the 2002 adopted plan, that will create a clear vision, action plan, timeline, and financial strategy for the re-development of the Gilroy Civic Center to meet the City government’s administrative and operational needs through City buildout and the needs of the Gilroy community. The City is requesting proposals from qualified consulting firms to develop the plan and implement it, based on the proposed scope of work contained in this request for proposals. The selected firm’s overriding purpose is to assist the City in seeing the project through from initiation of the project through the development and approval of a Master Plan, and through to completion of construction of the legislatively approved Master Plan and move-in of replaced or renovated buildings.

The Project includes the re-development of the existing Civic Center site as described in the project background below. The Master Plan will be the guiding document for the final project. An awareness and understanding of the City’s cultural, socio-economical, and operational nature is crucial for success.

This RFP is intended to be as descriptive as possible. However, omissions or oversights may be present in this document and the scope of work. Proposing firms are not to take advantage of these in preparing their documents or proposals and are to identify issues in either the question and answer period of the RFP process, or identify them in the proposal as it relates to the proposed methodology to perform the scope of work.

The City of Gilroy is a charter city located in southern Santa Clara County with a population of approximately 60,000. The City is a council-administrator form of government with the mayor elected at large for a four-year term and six City Councilmembers who are elected at large for four-year terms. Development activity in the original Gilroy town site dates back to the early 1800s, with the City formally incorporating in 1870. Since then, the City experienced several annexations and growth periods throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

Information regarding the City and its organization, such as governmental structure, services provided, the Current Operating and Capital Budgets, Annual Financial Reports, and the most recent Comprehensive Fee Schedule, is available on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org
The City is currently seeking proposals from qualified firms with experience in conducting the work as described above, and more fully detailed in the proposed scope of work and deliverables as provided later in this request for proposals.

Issuing Office
The City Administrator’s Office is the Issuing Office for this Request for Proposal (RFP) and the point of contact for all process and contract questions as well as protests.

7.3 p. 120 of 168
-5-
Contact
City Administrator’s Office
Bryce Atkins, Assistant to the City Administrator
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
[email protected]
Anticipated RFP Schedule
The Administration Department anticipates the following general timeline for this RFP and the schedule may change as necessary.

Issuance of RFP documents September 5, 2024
Deadline for RFP questions and
comments
5:00 p.m., PST, September
20, 2024
Response to questions available on
website
5:00 p.m., PST, September
27, 2024
Deadline for proposal submission 4:00 p.m., PST, October 18, 2024
Review of submissions (estimated
completion)
Friday, November 1, 2024
Finalist interviews/presentations (if
needed)
Thursday, November 7, 2024
Issue the Notice of Intent to Award Friday, November 8, 2024 Date Consultant is to sign contract and provide all
required attachments
Monday, November 11, 2024
Council award of contract at regular City Council
meeting
Monday, November 18, 2024
Submission Date and Location
Each responding Consultant must provide one electronic copy of their proposal in PDF format to [email protected], with a copy to [email protected].

The e-mail shall be entitled “Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan Proposal”. The proposals must be received by the City issuing office via e-mail by the Deadline for Proposal Submission, as defined above.

Solicitation Documents and Changes (Addenda)

7.3 p. 121 of 168
-6-
All solicitation documents may be viewed or printed online from the City’s website at https://www.cityofgilroy.org/Bids.aspx or may be viewed onsite at the Issuing Office at the address listed above.

Proposals received from other sources will not be considered valid documents. Please contact the Issuing Office listed above with any problems viewing solicitation documents.

All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via e-mail. The questions will be researched and the answers will be communicated to all known interested Consultants and posted on the City’s website after the deadline for receipt of questions.

Prospective Consultants shall not contact City officers or employees with questions or suggestions regarding this solicitation except through the primary contact person listed above. Any unauthorized contact may be considered undue pressure and cause for disqualification of the Consultant.

Consultants are responsible for checking the City’s website for the issuance of any addenda prior to submitting a proposal. The Consultant is held responsible for all addenda/changes to the documents and may be considered non-responsive if their proposal does not reflect those addenda/changes.

Protests
Any complaints or perceived inequities related to this RFP shall be made in writing and directed to the Issuing Office at the address listed above and accordance with the City purchasing policy. This policy may be found on the City’s website, located here:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/10774/Gilroy-Purchasing-Policy-.

Rejection of Proposals
The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals submitted. The City also reserves the right to waive or not waive any informalities or irregularities in proposal responses.

Partial Funding or Award
The City reserves the right to fund only a portion of the total funding identified in its sole discretion. The City may make a partial award of an amount it determines to be appropriate, based on the financial resources available and operational considerations.

Modification / Withdrawal
Unless otherwise specified, modification of the proposal will not be permitted; however a Consultant may withdraw his or her Proposal at any time prior to the scheduled closing time for receipt of proposals; any Consultant may withdraw their proposal, either personally or by written request to the Issuing Office. Withdrawal of proposal shall not disqualify the Consultant from submitting another Proposal provided the time for receipt of Proposals has not expired.

7.3 p. 122 of 168
-7-
Cancellation
The City reserves the right to cancel award of this contract at any time before execution of the contract by both parties if cancellation is deemed to be in the City’s best interest. In no event shall the City have any liability for the cancellation of award.

Duration of Proposals
Proposals must remain valid for at least 120 days. Proposals must be signed by an official authorized to bind the Consultant.

Public Record
All proposals submitted are the property of the City and are public records. All documents received by the City are subject to public disclosure after the City selects a Consultant.

Incurring Costs
The City is not liable for any cost incurred by Consultants prior to execution of a contract.

Selection Process
The City reserves the right to select the Consultant on the basis of the proposals or to conduct interviews with the highest qualified Consultant(s) following evaluation and scoring of the proposals, whichever is determined to best serve the needs of the City. The City reserves the right to seek clarifications on any or all proposals.

Project Background
The Civic Center sites comprise approximately 14 acres in central Gilroy. The area is bordered by Sixth Street on the north and Seventh Street to the south, Dowdy Street to the west and Church Street to the east. Within the area, the City owns all property with the exception of three homes along Dowdy Street.

The Civic Center site currently contains: City Hall; the City Hall Annex (former Police Department headquarters, converted to house the Emergency Operations Center, computer training lab, and other extra office and storage spaces); Wheeler Gymnasium; Library; Senior Center; Current Police Headquarters, seven parking lots of various sizes; four single family residential homes (three are not currently city-owned); one small grass area; Wheeler Park; and a central open area.

With aging and underutilized Civic Center facilities due to condition and growing service demands, the need to modernize the City’s Civic Center Master Plan and prepare the financial measures to implement the re-development of the Civic Center has increased dramatically. The Gilroy City Council authorized the preparation of a new Civic Center Master Plan to carry out this purpose.

The Civic Center Master Plan will inventory and analyze existing Civic Center facilities and open spaces and their uses. It will identify and compile Civic Center needs and desires based on City Council, staff, and community input. The Consultant is to identify opportunities and issues with the development of the Civic Center; present at least three

7.3 p. 123 of 168
-8-
(3) alternative programs and applicable conceptual design plans with cost estimates; and identify potential financing strategies, as well as proceed towards a general obligation bond ballot measure, for re-development of the Civic Center. Alternatives are to be formulated to meet current and future City and community programming needs while addressing operational and logistical issues, including, but not limited to maintenance, traffic circulation, parking needs, and accessibility. Site layouts and designs must maximize site use and meet space needs for applicable City staff and programming at City buildout.

The Consultant will gather, organize, and analyze data and inputs to formulate a vision of the Civic Center’s character and role in the community and develop recommendations of Civic Center programming and design alternatives for the Council’s consideration.

A Civic Center Master Plan framework and long-term site development plan are to be established that provide a foundation and implementation timeline for detailed design, funding, phasing, and construction of Civic Center projects. Responding firms must have demonstrated experience in analyzing municipal functions, space needs and responsibilities, managing the public participation process, and recommending sound planning and architectural solutions.

The entire City-owned property that comprises the Civic Center, and adjacent rights-ofway, are to be considered in master planning the site, as well as the three privatelyowned, single-family residences.

The Master Plan process should be approached collaboratively with the community, stakeholders, and staff. The project schedule should include working with community members and City staff, facilitating public participation, data gathering and analysis, document preparation, and facilitating reviews by key stakeholders and policy makers, including the public at-large, City staff, Planning Commission, and the City Council.

The existing Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan that was adopted in 2002, and can be found on the City of Gilroy’s website here:
https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/6945/Civic-Center-Master-Plan--- June-2002?bidId=
Scope of Work
The scope of work, in general, consists of the following phases:

A. Project Initiation

1. Development of an outline and timeline of Civic Center Master Plan and implementation work to be completed under the proposed agreement that provides timing and schedules from start of the project to completion, concluding with implementation and opening of the Civic Center facilities.

7.3 p. 124 of 168
-9-

2. A kick-off meeting will be held after award of contract. Consultant and its team will meet with City of Gilroy staff to conduct introductions, discuss scope of services, timelines, and implementation process.

3. Deliverables
i. Project outline and timeframe
ii. Kickoff meeting with regular meetings scheduled
B. Current Conditions Assessment

1. Review, analysis, and written summary of applicable key planning documents that provide land use, design, circulation, and other planning and policy context. These documents include:

2. Inventory and assessment of all Civic Center facilities and amenities and nearby City-owned properties and other areas necessary for consideration in the study. Must include, at a minimum, a description of the facilities or sites, year built, lot and building sizes, and current uses, specifying existing municipal services, programs, and staff (collectively, “programming”) currently housed in or delivered from existing Civic Center facilities, and adjacent and nearby City facilities.

3. Provide a comprehensive policy and regulations analysis of all City documents pertaining to the Gilroy Civic Center. This analysis should look at the City’s regulations from an economic and design related standpoint to determine how the codes and policies are affecting the economic environment of the Civic Center.

4. Deliverables
i. Report of Civic Center sites issues, constraints, and opportunities, including inventory of current assets with assessment, and description of applicable policies and regulations to this project.

C. Needs Assessment

1. Development of stakeholder information materials and delivery of workshops and surveys to assess City government and community needs and determine Civic Center Master Plan facilities required and desired.

Assessment and stakeholder input reports identifying Civic Center vision, existing service and facilities gaps, desired Civic Center facilities and amenities, and priority items.

2. Hold at least five community meetings and make presentations and solicit input from the community and other stakeholders.

3. Obtain input from local stakeholders including Gilroy residents, customers to the current Civic Center, local merchants, neighboring properties near the Civic Center, City staff and elected officials.

4. Allocate time for a minimum of five public stakeholder meetings, one Planning Commission Meeting and two City Council Meetings. (Minimum of ten total meetings).

5. Deliverables

7.3 p. 125 of 168
-10-
i. Survey, assessment, and report of programming to be provided at the new Civic Center sites that incorporates the administrative and operational needs and recommendations of City departments. ii. Community Civic Center needs and desires survey and report. iii. Civic Center vision report based on City and community input.

D. Master Plan Design

1. Work in conjunction with City Staff, City Consultants, and the City Council, to help create a detailed vision concept for the Gilroy Civic Center redevelopment project. This includes building prototypes, potential streetscape improvements, and recommendations for improved and updated design requirements.

2. Development at least three (3) recommended Civic Center Master Plan alternatives, each of which is to be designed to meet the following criteria:
i. Complements the design of surrounding structures that are to remain, if any.
ii. Projects the Gilroy Civic Center as a locus of civic pride with enhanced civic identity and public interface that improves the experience and sense of place.
iii. Makes City government more accessible to all.
iv. Represents the City’s civic identity and expresses the community’s civic values of open engagement with the government through site design and architectural expression.
v. Provides enough meeting space for the conduct of City business and allows for flexible scheduling for use by the community. vi. Provides larger meeting and program space, and parking, for public activities and events.
vii. Incorporates high sustainability standards into buildings and site design.
viii. Maximizes the resulting life of the buildings.
ix. Minimizes life-cycle costs of buildings.

3. Development of a phased approach to project implementation to minimize disruptions to existing City Civic operations, including interim City operations currently provided at the Civic Center.

4. Architectural Concepts. An initial series of architectural concepts should be developed that would evaluate options for building height, shape and location. After receiving initial feedback from the City the most promising concepts would be developed further and presented to the community through community meetings (at least five for receiving input) and finally the City Council for input. A final set of two or three concepts would then be developed for final selection. Final concepts would be developed to show exterior building materials, with color renderings showing the site context with parking, circulation and basic landscape features. The final architectural concept selected would then become part of the overall site Master Plan.

5. Building Floor Plan. Once the building height and shape have been selected, floor plans for each floor of the new City Hall will be developed

7.3 p. 126 of 168
-11-
from the space needs determination developed in the Needs Assessment phase. Prior to completing this task, individual meetings will be conducted with representatives of each department to better understand staffing, the need for adjacencies and service delivery needs. Preliminary floor plans will be presented for feedback in a workshop setting for all departments and then refined into a final floor plan for City approval. Floor plans will be developed to meet all applicable building codes and include support spaces such as equipment rooms, elevators, stairs and other common areas. Based on the approved floor plan color renderings should be prepared showing the primary building entry(ies), as well as other pertinent features for inclusion in the final Master Plan.

6. Preliminary Landscape Plan. The plan for the Civic Center should incorporate, to the degree possible, a civic plaza for community events, include outdoor patio spaces as appropriate, and consider an accessible green roof feature. Initial concepts should be developed and based on feedback from the City included with architectural concepts as they are developed and refined.

7. Sustainable Design Features. City Hall, and as many of the other Civic Center buildings as possible, should be planned as a LEED Platinum facilities. Initial ideas for sustainable design features will be presented to the City for initial review and input. Based on this input as the Master Plan becomes more complete a preliminary LEED check list should be prepared to demonstrate how the City can best achieve a LEED Platinum rating considering initial cost, operating costs and environmental benefits.

As an option, making City Hall a net zero energy consuming building should be evaluated considering costs and simple payback. The final LEED check list will be presented to staff and documented in the final Master Plan.

8. Construction Sequencing Plan. Depending on final building(s) siting, determine whether new buildings, such as City Hall, can be built while other Civic Center facilities remain occupied. Make recommendations to efficiently sequence new construction, renovations, demolition and site improvements. Identify needs for temporary office spaces as needed and include estimated costs.

9. Site Master Plan. A primary goal for this stage of the project is to develop a long-term Master Plan for the entire Civic Center Campus. The City wants to ensure that improvements completed are compatible and complimentary to existing buildings not being replaced or remodeled, and consistent with any potential future phasing of the project. The overall Master Plan should show the end state of the campus after all project phases have been completed.

10.Building Location Alternatives. An important component of master planning is deciding the locations of future buildings. As the Civic Center area is bounded within existing residential on all sides, it will be important that future locations of buildings and the overall plan design is developed to ensure the ultimate build out of the campus is efficient, sustainable and

7.3 p. 127 of 168
-12-
meets long-term service delivery needs. The task for master planning will be to create alternative scenarios for building siting. Each building scenario should include a site plan with building footprints and site planning elements including: site circulation, parking configuration, adjacent open space features such as entry plazas or outdoor patio spaces. Concepts for building location scenarios will be presented to City staff for feedback.

11.Circulation Study. Site circulation is a key component of site planning that will effect building placement, parking layout, and open space amenities.

Key goals include: creating a welcoming, safe, and attractive environment for all modes of transportation; improving the usability of open spaces; including appropriate sustainable design features; and ensuring that circulation is supportive of customer service needs and operational demands. Existing public streets through the campus include Hanna Street. The purpose of the circulation study is to evaluate a variety of options, consider their benefits and impacts, and decide on a circulation plan that best meets the City’s current and future needs. The circulation study will be a distinct work product that will be presented to City Council for final decisions. It’s envisioned that this component of the Master Plan would be delivered early in the process to inform final building placement, parking solutions, and open space amenities. A draft Circulation Study should be brought to the City’s Planning Commission for review and feedback, as the board responsible for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure review, as well as planning functions generally. The Study shall also incorporate the following:

12.Parking Alternatives Study. A goal for the parking study is to recommend an appropriate parking quantity and evaluate various methods to meet those needs. This shall include, but not limited to, the following elements:
i. Parking Quantity. Based on the planned program, count data, City standards, and potential for shared uses recommend a final parking quantity for inclusion in the Master Plan, including what parking facilities should be built.
ii. Parking Type. Evaluate a full range of parking types including:
surface, stand-alone parking structures (with or without underground levels), parking under new buildings, and automated stacked parking solutions. Prepare conceptual layouts so various options can be drawn to scale in draft site plans. Prepare preliminary cost estimates to evaluate options on a cost per net new space basis.
iii. Sustainable Design Features. Planned parking facilities should be planned to be energy efficient, properly treat storm water runoff, and considered as possible locations for solar power generation.

Planned sustainable features should be documented in the appropriate LEED checklist.

13.Open Space Plan. One of the opportunities identified in planning efforts to date is the ability to consolidate and expand open space on the campus.

7.3 p. 128 of 168
-13-
Ultimate quantities of open space will depend on to what extent we convert existing single-story buildings to multi-story, convert surface parking to structured parking and reconfigure the existing circulation network. Opportunities to create more and better open space amenities on the campus must be balanced with project costs and functional needs.

Initial concepts for open space should be developed and presented to staff for feedback and then a refined set of open space amenities brought back for a recommendation. The final Master Plan should clearly identify open space elements to be included.

14.Sustainable Design Features. The Master Plan should be developed to include sustainable design features applicable to the site including energy efficient lighting, drought resistant landscaping, appropriate building orientations, and preservation of mature trees where possible. Site sustainability features should be documented on the appropriate LEED checklist.

15.Land Survey. A complete land survey of the Civic Center Campus should be completed to establish base sheets that can be used for the Master Plan and future plans and specifications. Property lines, building locations, utility infrastructure and other site features should located as part of the survey. A title search should be completed to document all easements and property restrictions.

16.Developing the final site Master Plan will necessarily be an iterative process where some decisions will need to be made along the way. Two interactive workshops should be planned with City Council at key decision points during the development process.

17.Environmental Review. An integral part of the Master Plan is completing the CEQA analysis. The environmental document should be prepared, circulated for public review, reviewed by the Planning Commission, and certified by the City Council prior to any final decisions to adopt a Master Plan. For planning purposes, the environmental document is assumed to be a Program-level Environmental Impact Report that covers all elements of the Master Plan with sufficient detail to enable the City to proceed with construction of the project. The Environmental analysis should include a Traffic Impact Analysis done in accordance with City and other applicable agency standards as well as other technical studies needed for CEQA compliance.

18.Community Outreach. The master planning process is intended to be built on community engagement activities by soliciting community input during development of the Master Plan. City Council meetings and workshops as well as numerous commission reviews as previously outlined will be publicized by the City as opportunities for community input. Community surveys and regular postings to a project website will supplement outreach activities. Consultant should plan to coordinate with the City and prepare materials for: up to three community surveys; multiple community meeting

7.3 p. 129 of 168
-14-
session cohorts1, held multiple times throughout the process; monthly website postings; and quarterly articles for the City’s quarterly report through the Master Plan process.

19.Project Management and Meetings. Regular coordination with City project management staff is an important component of the project. i. Civic Center Development Team. The City will appointed a Civic Center Development Team (CCDT) comprised of staff from multiple City departments. The role of the CCDT is to provide general guidance and feedback on draft work products as they are developed. CCDT meetings will generally be scheduled prior to all City Council meetings and public presentations. Consultant will provide minutes of all CCDT meetings.
ii. Project Coordination. Regular bi-weekly progress meetings will be held with the City’s Project Manager either virtually or in person depending on agenda topics.
iii. Project Schedule. A project schedule will be developed to illustrate planned activities, major milestones, key decision points, and the schedule for delivering draft and final work products. The schedule should show all City Council and Commission meetings, in addition to the timeline for CEQA notices and hearings.

20.Master Plan Report. A Master Plan Report will be prepared for final adoption by City Council that will document site plans, illustrations, estimated project costs for improvements, LEED check lists, and other documentation that would support the final Master Plan.

21.Deliverables
i. Review, identification and compliance plan Report with City policies, General Plan, Specific Plan, zoning, design standards and other applicable City guidelines into the Project and eventual proposed alternatives.
ii. Complete required CEQA documentation and environmental requirements for adoption of the Civic Center Master Plan iii. Development of at least three (3) recommended Civic Center alternatives with program elements to meet City and community needs for Council consideration.
iv. Approved project schedule.
v. Develop a community outreach and input plan for City staff review, then implement the plan.
vi. Development of all identified reports above, including:
a) Architectural Concepts
b) Building Floor Plan
c) Preliminary Landscaping Plan
d) Sustainable Design Features
1 Cohort sessions involve convening multiple community meeting sessions of the same topic, but at different days, times, and locations to capture the most public input as possible. They should be scheduled in a relatively short window. Any time typically a community meeting would be held in similar projects, a cohort of meetings instead shall be held.

7.3 p. 130 of 168
-15-
e) Construction Sequencing Plan
f) Site Master Plan
g) Building Location Alternatives
h) Circulation Study
i) Parking Alternatives Study
j) Open Space Plan
k) Land Survey
l) Environmental Review Document(s)
vii. Master Plan Report
E. Master Plan Adoption

1. Formulate a recommendation with an associated development phasing plan and an associated financing plan which would identify the costs of each development phase.

2. The draft Final Master Plan, along with the draft Final Financing Plan, must be presented to Council for consideration of adoption by May 30, 2026.

3. Deliverables
i. Process for Council evaluation and selection of preferred alternative; and
ii. Final Master Plan report for Council selected alternative that includes:
a) Programming document, conceptual plans, and phased
capital improvement plan with timeline, milestones, and estimated costs.
b) Financing strategy plan.
c) Project delivery method analysis and recommendation.

F. Project Financing

1. Calculation of a total cost estimate for each recommended alternative that is all inclusive of design and construction costs, demolition, and removal of existing building(s); City project staffing; testing and inspection; environmental reviews and potential remediation requirements; permit fees; site work; construction; project and construction management; community outreach; relocation; furniture; fixtures; and equipment.

2. Provide professional advice and recommendations on financing and financial approaches, including, but not limited to P-3, traditional, and design-build.

3. Identify funding opportunities and approaches for the City Council’s consideration.

4. Identify General Obligation Bonds process, work with City staff and financial consultants to identify best path (open market or direct placement), preparation of ballot measure language and election documents, informational documents, handouts, and public information releases. Additionally:
i. Assess community’s ability to pay, economic and demographic studies, surveys, and testing to determine most likely passage

7.3 p. 131 of 168
-16-
levels for bond approvals to maximize funding level for project build-out.
ii. Gather pertinent information regarding rating agency factors early in the project to identify and assess data relating to factors to determine general rating estimation, and identify areas for improvement and steps to improve factors to maximize final rating for the sale of bonds
iii. Identify funding priorities if insufficient support for full funding by bond measure isn’t possible, and identify order of construction to meet the highest community supported components of the Civic Center Master Plan buildings/service areas.
iv. Work with City staff and financial consultants, as well as secure additional bond counsel and consultants, to complete the sale of bonds if approved by voters, up to deposit of sale proceeds with the City.

5. Deliverables:
i. Comprehensive Financial Options Plan.
ii. Development of general obligation bond documents, staff report, ballot measure language, and all necessary supporting
documentation to place ballot measure for November 2026 election.

G. Project Development, Design Engineering and Construction

1. Advise in coordinating the temporary relocation and continuing City operations prior to and during construction.

2. Upon request, oversee plans and specifications for quality; safety; building code compliance; CALGreen compliance, fire code compliance; future operation costs; and budget.

3. Upon request, oversee that all permits are procured, and the applicant is in compliance with all local requirements.

4. Propose, develop and implement Project quality assurance plan (e.g., testing and inspection program, etc.).

5. Upon request offer advice that all materials used are approved by City staff as environmentally appropriate.

6. Assist and advise on obtaining Certificate of Occupancy.

7. Deliverables:
i. In conjunction with City staff, secure design-build or design-bidbuild contractor(s). ii. Provide bid support and coordination efforts.
iii. Provide consulting services to the design drawings and construction management teams.

H. Project Closeout

1. Assist and advise City Hall staff with move back into the City Hall building once construction is complete.

2. Assist and advise contractors to provide the necessary operational training for any new equipment.

I. Tasks Performed in All Phases

7.3 p. 132 of 168
-17-

1. Facilitate all project-related meetings, including noticing, development of meeting agenda, and preparation of meeting agenda and minutes.

2. Upon request of the City Administrator or designated staff, attend all project-related meetings and make presentations to the City Council, Planning Commission, other boards and commissions, and other agencies and organizations as needed.

3. In coordination with staff, develop, implement, manage, monitor, and report on public engagement (includes outreach and community input) campaigns for each phase of the Project

4. Upon request, coordinate and participate in negotiations with potential Project partners.

5. Upon request, serve as contract monitor.

6. Advise and assist with the selection of the professional team as directed through the appropriate process (e.g., RFP, RFB, RFI) for: Architect, Engineer, Design Consultant, Hazardous Materials Abatement, CEQA/Permitting, Construction Management & Inspection, Utility, and site security.

7. Upon request, Prepare and distribute RFP/RFB/RFI documents and participation in the evaluation and interview process.

8. Coordinate with the City Attorney and staff in the preparation and review of contracts.

9. Assist with execution of consultant contracts.

10.Upon request, ensure that the consultants, contractor, and their subcontractors are properly insured and bonded.

11.Upon request, review and recommend payment of consultant and contractor invoices.

12.Upon request, assist review and advise on overall program schedule and a detailed construction project schedule with the City’s interest in mind.

13.Track milestones and assertively suggest corrective actions in order to stay on schedule.

14.Ensure a reasonable and realistic budget is developed and maintained.

Upon request, offer advice on the project budget to maintain the quality or integrity of the project.

15.Change order management: review - manage the contract to avoid unnecessary change orders or potential change orders for the project.

16.Review progress billings and when necessary, upon request negotiate revisions.

17.Offer advice on applicable federal, state, and local requirements.

18.Assist with obtaining outside agency approvals for the project.

19.Assist with resolving disputes or claims that may occur.

J. Preliminary Project Schedule

1. The project schedule shall have the draft final Civic Center Master Plan, Financial Plan, and general obligation bond ballot measure documents ready for Council consideration of adoption by May 15, 2026, to make the first City Council meeting in June to provide sufficient time to make the

7.3 p. 133 of 168
-18-
November 2026 election ballot for voters to consider adoption of bonds to fund the project.

2. Consultant shall work backward from that point to develop their schedules, in consultation with staff.

3. This project is expected to last for multiple years and there is not a firm schedule currently. This RFP includes the submission of a draft schedule.

It is anticipated that the selected Consultant will work with staff to refine and create a preliminary schedule and it is the City’s expectation that the Scope of Services will be completed in a timely manner, avoiding needless delays. The ideal Consultant candidate will have available resources and personnel, either in-house or under subcontract, to ensure the completion of the Scope of Services at the earliest possible time.

Proposal Contents
The proposal package shall be organized to include the following sections. Each proposal shall have the sections identified below as separate sections in the proposal document. The contents for each section are listed below and must be presented in the same order. The proposers shall be responsible for preparing an effective and clear proposal. Concise proposals without needless duplication are encouraged. Only one proposal from a firm may be submitted.

Proposals must be structured, presented, and labeled in the following manner:
• Cover Letter.
o The firms’ proposal must provide a written transmittal of the proposal in the form of a cover letter. The cover letter must be signed by a company officer empowered to bind the proposer to the provisions of this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to it. The cover letter will reference and respond to each of the following bulleted items:
 Consultant’s legal name and corporate structure.
 A high-level statement of the credentials to deliver the services sought under the RFP.
 Briefly state the Consultant’s understanding of the work to be performed and why the Consultant believes it is best qualified to perform the duties and tasks outlined and described in the scope of work contained in this request.
 Primary contact name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number.
 Identification of use of subconsultant(s), if any, and scope of work to be performed by subconsultant(s).
 A statement that the Consultant or any individual who will perform work for the Consultant is free of any conflict of interest.

7.3 p. 134 of 168
-19-
 Statement of acknowledgement that the City’s standard agreement has been reviewed and accepted.
 Signature of a company officer empowered to bind the Consultant to the provisions of this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to it.
• Table of Contents.
• Section 1. – Company Background.
o Provide history of the individual or proposing firm’s experience, as well as those of any subconsultants, which specifically addresses the individual or firm’s experience at producing the deliverables and project as described in this RFP.
o The proposal shall include an organizational chart, including those of any subconsultants proposed, and describe the organizational structure that is proposed to handle the project.
o Describe the specific types of services that your organization and/or subconsultants provide.
o Number of years your organization and any subconsultants have been in business.
o Describe your agency’s basic organization and management structure, and those of any subconsultants. Be sure to include the number of personnel involved in your organization.
• Section 2. – Company and Project Team Qualifications. o Qualifications and Related Experience of Personnel Who Will Perform Work. Résumés of all personnel who are proposed to provide professional services to the City within the Scope of Work outlined and described in this request shall be included. Résumés shall include all relevant experience, education, and other qualifications over the past three years, at a minimum.
 At a minimum, this should include the project manager/principal agent, associates in charge when project manager/principal agent is unavailable, key personnel, firm size, and an organization chart identifying only those who will perform work for the proposed project and the percentage of each individual’s time devoted to this project. The project manager/principal agent shall be the primary contact person to represent your firm and will be the person to conduct the presentation, if invited for an interview.
o Prior Relevant Experience. A description of prior work experience and projects relevant to the Scope of Work outlined and described in this request shall be included.
• Section 3. – References.

7.3 p. 135 of 168
-20-
o References of Local Government Clients. Please include a list of at least three (3) current and/or previous local government clients for which the Consultant that would be assigned to this project has rendered professional services similar to the scope of work outlined and described in this request.
 Provide a description of the project, client name, and the name, title, email address and telephone number of the primary contact person.
 References may not be older than 10 years from the deadline of proposal submission.
 Three samples of prior work completed by Consultant similar to the project requested by this RFP may be included as representative samples of the Consultant’s past work, which may be added as an appendix to the proposal, or links to the documents.
• Section 4. – Proposed Methodology.
o Consultant shall provide a work plan identifying the major tasks and subtasks anticipated by the Consultant associated with the completion of the project, including the proposed approach and detailed, projected timeline to conduct and complete each item in the Scope of Work. o Provide a staffing plan for the project. Specifically show the availability of staff to provide the necessary resource levels to meet the City’s needs. o The proposal shall include a detailed outline which demonstrates the firm’s understanding of the scope of work. This outline should include the anticipated approach, tasks necessary for successful completion, deliverables, and suggestions or special concerns that the City should be made aware of. Identify any assumptions and/or exclusions used in preparation of the scope of work and associated fee estimate. o Describe the quality control procedures and associated staff responsibilities which will ensure that the deliverables will meet the City’s needs.
• Section 5. – Proposed Timeline
o Provide a detailed critical-path-method schedule for completion of the tasks and sub-tasks required to accomplish the scope of work. Note all deliverables and interim milestones on the schedule.
o Also prepare an overall, high-level proposed timeline for the project.

Proposal shall include a timeline to complete the project, based upon the Scope of Work and availability of skilled labor force.
• Section 6. – Pricing
o Proposal shall have a project cost estimate with justification. o Proposal shall include hourly rates for all personnel on the project.

7.3 p. 136 of 168
-21-
o Proposal shall provide the cost estimate for the project as a time and materials based contract, with a proposed total estimate based on the scope of work. Identify the personnel and materials proposed, their hourly rates, and subtotals for each proposed phase of the workplan contained in the proposal.
o Proposal shall include the schedule of the firm’s and subconsultants’ hourly billable rates per staff person, and any proposed annual increases and their effective periods.
• Section 7. – Additional Information
o Agreement Statement. The proposal shall include a statement outlining your concurrence, proposed modifications or concerns with any and all provisions as contained in the sample agreement attached to this RFP.

Failure to follow the specified format, to label the responses correctly, or to address all of the subsections may, at the City’s sole discretion, result in the rejection of the Proposal.

Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Scoring
Proposal packages will be reviewed and scored, per the criteria below. Based on the number and quality of responses, Consultants may be asked to continue to an interview/presentation step in the process, should the evaluators determine it in the best interest of the City to do so.

The City will be the sole determiner of suitability to the City’s needs. Proposals will be rated according to their completeness and understanding of the City’s needs, conformance to the requirements of this Request for Proposals and the proposed scope of work, compatibility with the City’s current technology and operations, prior experience with similar scope of work, financial capabilities, delivery, and cost.

Subsequently, the City may interview a qualified Firm, prior to deciding whether or not to recommend the award of an Agreement.

It is the City’s intent to select one (1) firm to provide services to the City. The City reserves the right to make final decisions regarding the selected firm and the number of selected firms based on the quantity and quality of the RFPs received.

The City will select the proposal, if any, which best fulfills the City’s requirements. The City will then further refine the scope and schedule with that firm and request a fee and materials proposal with a not-to-exceed fee and budget. The City will negotiate the fee with that firm. The City reserves the right to negotiate special requirements and proposed service levels using the selected proposal as a basis. If the City is unable to negotiate an agreeable fee for services with the top firm, the City will negotiate with the next firm chosen among the top firms.

7.3 p. 137 of 168
-22-
Each proposal may receive a maximum of 100 points, as summarized below:

CRITERIA POINTS
Consultant firm’s experience and qualifications as it relates to the scope of services of the RFP
• Professional experience in performing and completing tasks similar in scope and complexity. City will weigh the evidence that the Proposer has performed satisfactorily other contracts of like nature, magnitude and comparable difficulty and comparable rates of progress.
• Past, recently completed, or on-going Civic Center Master Plan services that will substantiate experience.
• Quality of Proposer’s previous work examples.
• References from customers and/or clients to whom firm has delivered similar services.
20 Project Methodology
• Ability to provide services as outlined in the RFP.
• Approach and proposed methodology to project scope of work. • Demonstrated knowledge of the work required.
• Innovative approaches and internal measures to ensure timely and quality completion of work.
• Ability to demonstrate its qualifications in a clear and compelling manner and ability to follow all directions included in this RFP. • Review and negotiation of acceptance or exceptions to the City’s Professional Services Agreement
• Quality and thoroughness of proposer’s schedule and milestone timeline. Ability to meet project timeliness. The capacity to perform work within the desired timeframe.
• The proposer’s responsiveness to the RFP including completeness and thoroughness of proposal; all required information must be provided in the format specified.
• Proposed plan to achieve the Scope of Services described herein and produce the required outcome in a timely manner.
• Overall approach is most likely to result in the desired outcome for the City.
40 Staffing plan and project team qualifications
• Consultant’s team is clearly identified, along with its full capabilities relevant to the project at hand.
• Demonstrates relevant experience of key personnel based on resumes showing technical knowledge and experience.
• Stability and consistency of staff on project over time. • Identifies all other firms (subconsultants) included on the Project Team along with the Consultant and describes the scope of the Consultant’s and each consultant or firm’s services and 20 7.3
p. 138 of 168
-23-
responsibilities during the project.
• Adequate immediate supervision and review of staff performing the work as well as appropriate independent peer review of the work by qualified technical staff not otherwise involved in the project. • Availability of key staff to perform the services throughout the duration of the project.
• Assignment of appropriate staff in the right numbers to perform the Scope of Services.
• Appropriate communication and reporting relationships to meet the City’s needs.
• Relevance of experience of the proposing firm (to provide support resources to the project team).
• Relevance of experience and strength of qualifications of the Project Manager.
• Relevance of experience and strength of qualifications of the key personnel performing the work.
• Relevance of referenced projects and client review of performance during those projects.

Project Timeline
• Ability to complete the work in the shortest schedule possible. • Proposed timeline meets the deadlines as contained in the scope of work.
• Timeline proposed is consistent with the proposed methodology and are reasonable timeframes for achievement of the scope of work.
10 Cost Proposal
• Competitive pricing as compared to other qualified proposer’s RFP responses
10 TOTAL 100

7.3 p. 139 of 168

Page 1 of 12 ends

Gilroy City CouncilNovember 18, 2024

Gilroy City Council
November 18, 2024