____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 3.b
Meeting Date: April 6, 2026
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager
Prepared by:
John Stefanski, Assistant City Manager
April Miller, Public Works Director
Gary Chubb, Measure P Capital Project Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: NEW MAIN LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT DELIVERY SUBJECT: NEW MAIN LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT UPDATE AND
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY METHODS
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive staff's analysis of alternative project delivery methods for the Main Library and Community Center Project (Measure P);
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) project delivery method; and
3. Direct staff to initiate Project Labor Agreement negotiations with the North Bay Building and Construction Trades Council and Northern California Carpenter’s Regional Council.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2024, San Rafael voters passed Measure P; a citizen’s initiative to fund a new main library and community center at Albert Park. Measure P established a non-ad valorem parcel tax for the purpose of building these facilities, representing a significant investment in the city's cultural and civic institutions.
This project will be one of the largest capital projects undertaken by San Rafael in recent years.
In October 2025, the City entered into a Capital Project Management Services contract with Griffin Structures (Griffin) to assist the City with the pre-construction planning phase, which includes community engagement, design, permitting, and oversight of the construction phase of the new Albert Park Library and Community Center. Since this time, City Staff and the Griffin team have been working to develop an overall project plan and timeline, evaluate a potential project facility program (i.e. space and square footage requirements), and establish an initial project budget estimate. A presentation on these items was made to the Measure P Subcommittee on February 23, 2026. At that meeting, the subcommittee also received a presentation on the various project delivery methods for this project and recommended that an item be brought forward to the City Council for further consideration and to give direction to staff on how to proceed.
ANALYSIS:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Proposed Facility Program and Initial Budget Estimate
Since initiation of the pre-construction planning phase, City staff and the Griffin team have worked collaboratively to develop a preliminary facility program and conceptual project budget for the new Albert Park Library and Community Center. This effort included review of the Measure P requirements, benchmarking against comparable library and community facilities, staff operational input, and iterative cost modeling to ensure the proposed program aligns with anticipated funding capacity.
The proposed facility program includes approximately 50,000 square feet of building space designed to support both modern library services and flexible community programming. The building program integrates library functions, community enrichment spaces, shared civic gathering areas, and operational support spaces necessary for long-term facility operations. Major program components include:
• Library services areas, including adult, children’s, and teen library spaces, collections, reading and technology areas, and study and collaboration rooms; • Community enrichment and multipurpose spaces, including classrooms, art and program rooms, fitness and wellness areas, and a large multipurpose event space designed to support community events and cultural programming;
• Lifelong learning and dedicated senior space, including Goldenaires workspace and support space for senior programming activities;
• Shared civic gathering spaces, including an entry lobby and “community living room” designed to serve as a welcoming public gathering area; and
• Staff workspace and operational support areas, including offices, workstations, materials handling, and building service spaces necessary to support daily operations.
In addition to the building program, the project concept includes approximately 31,800 square feet of outdoor program space integrated with Albert Park. Outdoor elements may include an inclusive/accessible children’s playground, garden and outdoor learning spaces, fitness and wellness areas, outdoor gathering patios, and flexible lawn areas for community events and recreation. These outdoor features are intended to expand the facility’s ability to serve residents of all ages and provide year-round community activity.
The preliminary program has been evaluated against the Measure P library planning framework, which establishes a benchmark of approximately 0.70–0.75 square feet of library space per capita for library facilities. The proposed program, including library and shared joint-use spaces, aligns with the service expectations contemplated under Measure P while balancing the need for community programming, operational efficiency, and fiscal responsibility.
Based on this preliminary program, staff and Griffin have developed an initial conceptual project budget estimate of approximately $105 million. This estimate reflects current market conditions for public facility construction in the Bay Area and includes construction costs, site improvements, professional services, furniture and equipment, contingencies, and escalation to the anticipated midpoint of construction (e.g. adjusting costs for future inflation).
The program and budget framework will continue to be refined as the project advances through community engagement, environmental review, site capacity and parking evaluation, and the design process. As discussed below, the recommended Progressive Design-Build delivery method will provide SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
the City with ongoing cost feedback during design development, allowing the project team to refine scope and maintain alignment between the facility program and available funding.
Project Delivery Methods
When a city decides to build social infrastructure projects — like a new library or fire station — it has to choose how to organize and manage the work of designing and constructing that facility. This is what "project delivery method" means: it's the structure that defines who does what, in what order, and under what form of contract. For example, does the city hire an architect to design the building first, and then separately hire a contractor to build it? Or does it hire one team to handle both design and construction together? Does the city negotiate the final price upfront, or work collaboratively with the team to refine the design and cost before locking anything in? The delivery method shapes everything — how long the project takes, how much control the city has over design decisions, who bears the risk if something goes wrong, and ultimately how well the final facility serves the community.
As a follow-up to the February Measure P Subcommittee discussion, staff has completed an evaluation of alternative project delivery methods to determine the approach most likely to successfully achieve the project's goals within budget, on schedule, and with appropriate architectural and quality standards. This evaluation has been informed by industry best practices, applicable California Public Contract Code requirements, and the experiences of comparable agencies that have undertaken similar projects.
Staff evaluated the following three project delivery methods for the Main Library and Community Center project. Each is summarized below, including key advantages, disadvantages, and their implications for the City's specific project goals.
1. Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
Design-Bid-Build is the traditional project delivery method in which the owner first contracts separately with a design professional to complete 100% construction documents, and then competitively bids the construction contract to the lowest responsive and responsible contractor. Design and construction are sequential, separate phases. This is the method the city has used historically for capital projects, including the recent Essential Facilities Fire Station and Public Safety Center projects.
Advantages:
• Widely understood by City staff, design firms, and contractors, with well-established procurement procedures.
• Clear delineation of responsibilities between the designer and contractor. • Full design completion before bidding provides price certainty at the time of award. • Broadest contractor pool — lowest qualified bidder is awarded the contract, promoting competition.
• Maximum City control over design decisions and design quality.
Disadvantages:
• Sequential process results in the longest overall project schedule. • Limited collaboration between designer and contractor during design can result in constructability issues, errors, and omissions that drive costly change orders. • Construction costs are not known until design is fully complete, reducing the City's ability to make real-time budget adjustments during design.
• Diffuse accountability — disputes between designer and contractor over design errors are common and can result in claims and litigation.
• No contractor input on phasing, systems selection, or scheduling during design.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Risk Profile:
Under DBB, the City retains the greatest project risk. Design errors or omissions discovered during construction typically result in change orders at the City's expense. The separation of design and construction contracts means there is no single point of accountability, on the contractor side, for overall project performance. While competitive bidding provides price competition, it also creates adversarial dynamics between owner (City), designer, and contractor.
2. Design-Build (DB)
In the Design-Build method, a single entity — the “design-build team” — is responsible for both design and construction under a single contract. The City defines the project requirements through performance specifications, bridging documents, and a Request for Proposals (RFP). The design-build entity is selected competitively based on qualifications, approach, and price.
Advantages:
• Single point of responsibility for design and construction reduces disputes and clarifies accountability.
• Overlapping design and construction phases compress the overall schedule. • Contractor input during design reduces constructability issues and change orders. • Potential for cost savings and innovation through integrated team approach. • Risk of design errors and omissions shifts to the design-build entity.
Disadvantages:
• Requires a well-defined project scope and performance criteria upfront — difficult for complex, community-driven projects where scope is still evolving. • Less owner control over design details once the contract is awarded. • May be challenging for City staff unfamiliar with DB procurement and administration. • Price certainty is based on performance specs and a preliminary concept bridging document, not completed design — scope gaps can still lead to disputes. • Qualifications-based selection limits the contractor pool compared to DBB.
Risk Profile:
Design-Build transfers a significant portion of design and construction risk to the design-build entity.
However, if the City's project requirements (the basis of the contract) are incomplete or ambiguous, the risk reverts to the City. DB is most effective when the project scope and performance criteria can be clearly defined before procurement.
3. Progressive Design-Build (PDB)
Progressive Design-Build is a variant of Design-Build authorized under California PCC Section 22171 in which the design-build entity is selected based primarily on qualifications and approach — not a fixed price for the design and construction of the project based on an incomplete design package. The team then works collaboratively with the City through an initial design phase before scope and pricing are agreed upon with the issuance of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP). This approach is particularly well-suited for complex, unique, or community-sensitive projects where full scope definition prior to procurement is not feasible.
Advantages:
• Fastest delivery —due to concurrent design and construction phases and early contractor engagement.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
• Qualifications-based selection promotes best value rather than lowest cost, attracting highly experienced teams for complex projects.
• Collaborative process enables continuous scope refinement and real-time cost feedback during design, reducing surprises at construction.
• Reduces change orders and claims through integrated team design and early contractor input on systems, constructability, and phasing.
• Single point of accountability — design and construction responsibility rests with one entity. • GMP is established after sufficient design development, providing cost certainty before full construction commitment.
• Most suitable delivery method for complex, multi-use, community-serving facilities like a combined Library and Community Center.
• Provides for early engagement of all project stakeholders, including community interests, during the design phase.
Disadvantages:
• Less price certainty at project outset — final GMP is not established until after initial design phases.
• May be less familiar to City staff; requires experienced Owner's Representative support to successfully manage procurement and delivery.
• Smaller pool of qualified respondents compared to DBB — requires careful RFP development to attract competitive interest.
Risk Profile:
PDB achieves a balanced risk allocation. The collaborative pre-GMP phase allows both the City and the design-build entity to surface and mitigate risks before they are locked into a fixed price. Once the GMP is established, the design-build entity assumes responsibility for delivering the project within that price, with design and construction risk largely transferred. The primary City risk is schedule delay related to the collaborative design phase, which can be mitigated through clear contract milestones and experienced project management.
Project Timeline and Schedule Implications
Schedule is a significant factor in the overall cost and community impact of the Main Library and Community Center project. Delays in project delivery result in construction cost escalation, extended interim facility operating costs, and prolonged disruption to community services. The estimated project durations for each delivery method are as follows:
• Design-Bid-Build: approximately 68 months
• Design-Build: approximately 64 months
• Progressive Design-Build: approximately 62 months
The approximately 6-month schedule advantage of PDB over DBB is significant. Assuming a total project cost in the range of $105 million and an annual construction cost escalation rate of 4.25%, each month of delay represents meaningful additional cost to the City. The time savings associated with PDB are expected to generate material cost avoidance over the project lifecycle, partially offsetting any added administrative cost of PDB procurement and delivery.
Market Considerations and Contractor Interest
Each delivery method carries different implications for contractor market participation and competition:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Design-Bid-Build: Offers the broadest market access. Any licensed contractor meeting minimum qualifications may bid, and award is made to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. While this maximizes price competition, it does not ensure selection of the team most capable of delivering a complex, high-quality facility.
Design-Build: Selection is based on qualifications and approach in addition to price, which narrows the respondent pool but improves the quality of competing teams. Public agencies routinely achieve strong competition with three to five well-qualified proposers.
Progressive Design-Build: Selection is primarily qualifications-based, which may further narrow the proposer pool. However, the PDB model is attractive to highly experienced design-build teams that value collaborative project development. A well-crafted RFP and proactive outreach to qualified firms — including pre-proposal industry briefings — can generate competitive interest. The use of this delivery method also requires the use of a “skilled and trained workforce” which may impact the overall number of contractors who choose to work on the project as described below.
Skilled and Trained Workforce and Labor Compliance Requirements under PDB.
California Public Contract Code Section 22185 requires that any local agency utilizing the Design-Build or Progressive Design-Build delivery method ensure that the selected design-build entity and its subcontractors at every tier utilize a Skilled and Trained Workforce (STW) to perform all work within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.
California Public Contract Code Section 2600 defines a Skilled and Trained Workforce (STW) as one in which: (1) all workers performing work in an apprenticeable occupation are either skilled journeypersons or apprentices registered in a state-approved apprenticeship program; and (2) at least 30–60% of the skilled journeypersons employed on the project (depending on the trade classification) are graduates of an apprenticeship program for their occupation.
To satisfy this requirement for a PDB project, the City has two primary compliance options:
Option A: Enforceable Agreement
The City may enter into an enforceable agreement directly with the Design-Build Entity prior to selection, requiring the contractor and all subcontractors to comply with STW requirements and to submit monthly reports documenting compliance. This option avoids some of the time and cost of negotiating a PLA but requires ongoing monitoring and creates potential exposure to delays or litigation if violations occur.
Option B: Project Labor Agreement (PLA)
A Project Labor Agreement (PLA) is a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement that establishes uniform terms and conditions of employment for all contractors and subcontractors on the project. Under California law, a PLA on a PDB project must include a provision requiring the use of a Skilled and Trained Workforce, or in other words, unionized building and construction trades labor. A PLA, when properly negotiated and implemented, satisfies the STW compliance requirements and eliminates monthly reporting obligations.
Key implications of a PLA for the Library and Community Center project include:
• A PLA may reduce the risk of work stoppages and labor disputes during construction, improving schedule certainty.
• PLAs typically provide access to a stable, trained workforce through union hiring halls, which can be advantageous for complex projects requiring specialized trades. • PLAs can include local hire goal provisions, providing the opportunity for city residents employed in the construction trades to work on the project in their hometown. • Negotiating and administering a PLA involves additional cost and time upfront and may reduce the pool of contractors willing to bid (e.g. non-union firms), though California law requires PLAs SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
to permit qualified contractors regardless of union affiliation so long as they become signatories to the related Union’s master labor agreement.
Should the City Council authorize staff to proceed with a progressive design build project delivery method, staff would recommend that the City enter into a Project Labor Agreement rather than the enforceable commitment to meet the skilled and trained workforce requirements under California Public Contract Code Section 22185. Staff believe that a PLA would have fewer administrative requirements than the Enforceable Commitment’s monthly reporting requirements. The PLA will provide greater access to the required skilled trades for a project of this complexity while also ensuring labor peace (i.e. no strikes, walkouts, etc.), through the project’s lifetime. This move also aligns with that of the County of Marin, who is pursuing a Progressive Design Build approach with the Marin County Fire Department Headquarters project and elected to proceed with a project labor agreement.
Conclusion and Next Steps:
Staff believe pursuing a Progressive Design-Build delivery method will ultimately provide for a higher quality project which may also yield a shorter time frame to completion. This view has been corroborated by the City’s capital project management consultant, Griffin Structures, and contract attorney team for the project, Best Best and Kreiger, who both have shared anecdotally that jurisdictions they work with are very satisfied with this project delivery approach for the aforementioned reasons. The advantages of this approach, when compared to other available options, will help to ensure the City’s achieves the best value for our community who voted for this new facility to be built.
Following direction from the City Council on this item, Staff is prepared to develop and release a Design Build Entity Solicitation (RFP) as well as initiate California Environmental Quality Act consultation and environmental process. At the same time, staff will seek to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement for the project. An update on these items will be provided to the Measure P Subcommittee at their June 2, 2026 regular meeting. The City Council will review and approve any proposed Project Labor Agreement. The City Council will also approve the contract for the Design Build Entity and CEQA consultant, following review of finalist firms by the Measure P Subcommittee later this year.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
Beginning in May 2026, Staff will launch an initial community engagement effort to identify top community priorities for the new facility and to help refine the initial proposed building program developed by the project team. This effort will include a community survey and the first meeting of a Community Stakeholder Committee. The Community Stakeholder Committee has been established to provide input on programming, use, and design of the facility. This committee will consist of seven members that represent key stakeholder groups for the future library and community center. These members include:
• Board of Library Trustees: Larry Andow, Trustee
• Friends of the San Rafael Public Library: Glena Coleman, Board Member • Goldenaires Senior Citizens Organization: representative still to be confirmed • Park and Recreation Commission: Kela Cabrales, Commissioner • San Rafael Chamber of Commerce: representative still to be confirmed • San Rafael Public Library Foundation: Cheryl Lentini, Board Member • San Rafael City Schools: Pepe Gonzalez, Director of Community Partnerships SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
The first meeting of the Community Stakeholder Group will take place on May 11, 2026 where the group will discuss the project overview and timeline, community engagement, and the draft building program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the City Council's action to authorize the project delivery method at this time. Staff will return to the City Council for appropriation of project funding and approval of professional services contracts as the project advances through procurement.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1. Approve the Staff recommendation
2. Direct staff to pursue a project delivery method other than Progressive Design Build
3. Direct staff to pursue the enforceable commitment requirement instead of a Project Labor Agreement.
4. Direct staff to return with more information.
5. Take no action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive staff's analysis of project delivery methods for the Measure P Library and Community Center project;
2. Authorize staff to proceed with the Progressive Design-Build (PDB) project delivery method; and
3. Direct staff to initiate Project Labor Agreement negotiations with the North Bay Building and Construction Trades Council and Northern California Capenter’s Regional Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
None.