Clayton City Council
March 15, 2022

Construction and Project Management .Inspection .Staff Augmentation 3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 345 Lafayette, CA 94549 .P (925) 385-0950 .F (925) 385-0424 . www.anchorcm.com On a personal level, I grew up in nearby Concord and I know the area well. I am currently a Concord resident that can respond quickly and efficiently to the City’s needs. Our office is located within Contra Costa County and many staff reside nearby as well. All of our subconsultant firms have an office in the East Bay and already service many clients in Contra Costa County.

We are committed to providing high quality services on an affordable budget to the City and itsresidents. With CSG as our main partner, our team will be able to provide you with the day‐to‐day attention of a smaller firm while  offer  access  to  resources  of  a  larger  firm  when  needed. Please contact me at (925) 890‐9732 or [email protected] if you have any questions. We look forward to discussing our qualifications with you and establishing a collaborative working relationship with the City.

Sincerely,
Larry Theis, P.E.

President

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 3 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2a: Firm Information
AnchorCM
AnchorCM was founded in 2003 as Anchor Engineering, Inc. AnchorCM is an S‐Corporation owned and managed by Bisa Grant. We are a minority woman‐owned business. AnchorCM is a Small Business Enterprise (SBE), and a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) (CUCP #50749). Our Department of Industrial Relations Contractor Registration Number is 1000015352.

We are driven by the desire to provide exemplary service to our clients, while providing a professional work environment for ourstaff. By attracting the best and brightest to our firm, your municipal engineering needs getthe attention they require.Ourspecialties are construction project management, and staff augmentation servicesfor public infrastructure projects and programsthroughout California. AnchorCM has approximately 25 employees that will help meet your needs.

AnchorCM’s municipal engineering servicesisled by our President, Larry Theis. Larry has more than 20 years of municipal engineering experience and is a California registered professional civil engineer (C67662). Larry will be supported by Jason Chen, Anchor’s Engineering Manager (former City Engineer of Orinda), who is also a California registered professional civil engineer (C68846).

CSG
CSG is a California company with their headquarters in Foster City. Additional support is available from regional officesin Pleasanton, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno, Orange, and Newman. The majority of the over 300 individuals within the firm have provided public agency servicesthroughout their careers. Their talented personnel bring a wealth of ideas and experiences having provided services to communities facing similar challenges and opportunities as the City of Clayton. CSG staff consists of civil engineers, traffic engineers, surveyors, program and project managers, construction managers, inspectors, and specialized planning professionals.

Advanced Mobility Group (AMG)
Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) is a California Corporation and certified Small Business Enterprise (SBE), established in 2018 to provide specialized innovative transportation services to clients. Their team assists with disruptive technologiesto empower the private and public sector in early adoption of proven advanced transportation solutions and intelligent infrastructure.

AMG isstaffed by a 30‐member team with officeslocated in Walnut Creek, Oakland, and San Francisco. Their engineering professionals serve public sector clients throughout California and have performed key work on projects across the nation. Work on this contract will be performed from the Walnut Creek Office in Contra Costa County.

Their team of transportation professionals offer a wide range of services that address clients’ needs throughout the duration of a project’s life cycle from planning to operations and maintenance – including permitting assistance, programming, public engagement, conceptual and final design, schedule analysis, technical services, procurement services, project delivery, construction support, dispute/claims resolution, systems integration, revenue generation, and ongoing infrastructure management.

AMG is familiar with Caltrans specifications, standard plans, and procedures tied to the design and construction of traffic systems and development of traffic handling plans. As a vested partner in the community, AMG connects to projects on a personal level to advance the quality of life in communities City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 4 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
across the region.

BSK Associates (BSK)
BSK is a 100 percent employee‐owned California S Corporation that provides consulting engineering, construction observation, materials testing, special inspection, and analytical chemistry laboratory services.

Founded in 1966 in Fresno, nearly 75% of BSK’s Bay Area office’s projects are in support of on‐call contracts for the public sector. Their Bay Area office currently staffs 30 employees, including 2 registered geotechnical engineers, a registered civil engineer, 2 registered geologists, 5 engineers‐in‐training, 2 geologists‐in‐ training, and 22 multi‐certified special inspectors and materials testers.

The BSK Bay Area team has a strong resume supporting on‐call contracts which include Alameda County, Contra Costa County and Stanislaus County, and the Cities of Alameda, Belmont, Berkeley, Brentwood, Dublin, Fremont, Livermore, Pinole, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Tracy, Vallejo, and Walnut Creek as examples.

Although the CIP projects that they support are by far small in scope, BSK is also a State of California Department of General Services‐certified Small Business for Public Works Projects (SB‐PW), certification #2014327SB‐PW. BSK is a registered public works contractor with the Department of Industrial Relations, DIR Registration Number 1000003557.

Francisco & Associates (F&A)
F&A has been in business since 2000. F&A is a S‐Corporation. The firm has two locations, in San Ramon and Carlsbad. The firm isled by itsfounder and principal, Joseph A. Francisco, P.E. (C40688) and Eduard Espinoza, P.E. (C83709). F&A has seven employees and additional stuff during peak season. Principal members of the firm have over 60 years of public finance and municipal engineering experience. Members of the project team have worked for public agencies and been responsible for the formation and administration of special assessment districts and other financing districts.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 5 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2b: Names and Roles of Personnel
The scope of work within this RFP is broken down into four key categories of services:

1. City Engineering:

Larry Theis (AnchorCM) will perform the work of Clayton’s City Engineer. Larry will also provide oversight of the work performed by subconsultants under this category as well as the other three categories. While AnchorCM is able to provide the day‐to‐day engineering needs of the City, if necessary, the following subconsultants may be utilized for their technical expertise:
 Civil Engineering: CSG: The CSG civil engineering team will be led by Mario Camorongan, P.E., and assisted by Laurence Lau, P.E., PLS, QSD/P.
 Traffic/transportation: Advanced Mobility Group (AMG): The AMG team will be led by Joy Bhattacharya, P.E., PTOE, Vice President.
 Geotechnical: BSK’s engineering team will be led by Cristiano Melo, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer and will be assisted by Carrie Foulk, P.E., G.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Group Manager.
 Other subconsultants: AnchorCM has access to several other technical subconsultants should other needs arise.

2. General Engineering Services (Non‐General Fund Capital Projects):

AnchorCM will provide general oversight of the work under this category. The work can be performed by AnchorCM or our team of technical subconsultants. They are as follow:
 Civil Engineering: The CSG civil engineering team will be led by Mario Camorongan, P.E., and assisted by Laurence Lau, P.E., PLS, QSD/P.
 Traffic/Transportation: Advanced Mobility Group (AMG): The AMG team will be led by Joy Bhattacharya, P.E., PTOE.
 Geotechnical: The BSK geotechnical team will be led by Cristiano Melo, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer and will be assisted by Carrie Foulk, P.E., G.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Group Manager.
 Material Testing: The BSK material testing team will be led by Cristiano Melo, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer and will be assisted Michael Kibbey, Material Testing Task Manager.  Other subconsultants: AnchorCM has access to several other technical subconsultants should other needs arise.

When required by grants such as federal grants, it may be necessary for the City to issue project‐specific Request for Qualifications (RFQ) or Request for Proposals (RFP). In those instances, AnchorCM will act on behalf of the City through the solicitation process to select the technical consultants. To avoid a conflict of interest, AnchorCM will not propose on those solicitations.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services:

AnchorCM will provide general oversight of all work under this category. CSG will lead the land development review and permitting services. BSG’s geotechnical team will support CSG with geotechnical review needs. The CSG land development review team will be led by Mario Camorongan, P.E. The BSK geotechnical team will be led by Cristiano Melo, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer and will be assisted by Carrie Foulk, P.E., G.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Group Manager.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 6 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services:

AnchorCM will provide oversight of all work under this category. For the GHAD, Larry Theis will also serve as the GHAD Manager.

F&A will be the main subconsultant that will perform the annual administration/assessment levy services.

Principal members of the firm, Eduardo Espinoza, P.E., Brian Brown, and Joseph Francisco, P.E., combined have over 60 years of public finance and municipal engineering experience. Members of the project team have worked for public agencies and been responsible for the formation and administration of special assessment districts and other financing districts.

Francisco & Associates believes having a senior level professional as the main point of contact for the City and property owners eliminates confusion and frustration for their clients. Most of their competitors have multiple points of contact for their clients. For example, one employee may prepare the annual levy, another may prepare the annexations, another may oversee the formations, and another may assist with property owner phone calls. This process does not allow one employee or multiple members of your project team to know all the details associated with the annual administration of the City’s assessment districts thereby not allowing the firm to respond quickly and accurately to questions from City staff, developers, property owners, etc.

For this reason, your project team will consist of the individuals below:

Your Principal‐In‐Charge and Assessment Engineer will be Eduardo Espinoza, P.E., who has worked with public agencies for over 14 years. Eduardo Espinoza will be the City’s assessment engineer and will oversee all aspects of the City’s project. He will be assisted by Brian Brown, Project Manager, who has over 15 years of public finance experience andwill be the City’s and property owner’s day to day contact. Joseph Francisco, P.E., Quality Control Engineer, who has over 35 years of municipal engineering and public finance experience will be responsible for reviewing work product and ensuring that all internal quality control measures are implemented and adhered to. Anthony Hernandez, Project/GIS Analyst will support the Assessment Engineer and Project Manager as needed throughout the annual administration process.

If necessary, AnchorCM will also utilize BSK for geotechnical work. The BSK geotechnical team will be led by Cristiano Melo, P.E., G.E., Principal Engineer and will be assisted by Carrie Foulk, P.E., G.E., Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Group Manager.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 7 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Organization Chart
This organization chart below represents our proposed project team for the City of Clayton’s engineering needs. We have the necessary resources to handle all engineering requests from the City.

City of Clayton
Reina Schwartz
City Manager
AnchorCM
Larry Theis
City Engineer
AMG
Joy Bhattacharya
Traffic
CSG
Lawrence Lau, P.E.

Civil Engineering
CSG
Suzanne Avila
Environmental
Support
CSG
Mario Camorongan,
P.E. Land Development
CSG
David Rubcic, P.E.

City Surveyor
F&A
Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

Assessment District
AnchorCM
Jason Chen
Deputy City Engineer
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 8 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2c: Resumes of Personnel
Below is Larry Theis’s resume. Resumes for other key personnel are included in the appendix.

Larry Theis, P.E.

Project Principal, City Municipal Engineer
Experience Summary
Larry has over 21 years of experience in Municipal Engineering for public agencies. He has worked at the State, County, and Local/City levels of government, specifically in engineering and public works. He brings these skills to AnchorCM to consult and provide services to Northern California public agency clients.

Experience
21 years
Education/Training
State of California
Professional Engineer
License #67662
B.S. Civil and
Environmental
Engineering, Emphasis
in Transportation &
Project Management,
UC Berkeley
CA Notary Public
#2282509
Affiliations
American Public Works
Association
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Skills
Public Speaking/
Council Presentations
Outreach and
Consensus Builder
Relevant Project Experience:

City of Orinda,
City Engineer then Director of Public Works and Engineering Services (2013‐2021)
Responsible for capital improvement projects, engineering, development review, lighting and landscape district, maintenance and operations.

Highlights include a completion of a $55 million roadway program, $3 million emergency rainstorm repairs, presentations and preparation of staff reports and resolution for City Council, public outreach for projects and new programs, worked closely with City Attorneys on flooding and landslide case, and procured regional and federal grants for projects.

City of Orinda
Orinda Pavement Rehabilitation Program, Department Head Oversight $60 million, 2014‐2019
Full depth reclamation, mill and overlay, slurry seal with digouts, microsurfacing, culvert replacement ‐ multiyear renewal of road pavement condition from PCI 46 to 85.

City of Orinda
Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation, Project Manager
$2.5 million, 2015
Mill & overlay and signal upgrades on major arterial road.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Kirker Pass Overlay, Project Manager/Resident Engineer, Lead Designer $1.7 million, 2012
Cold in Place Recycling ‐ using emulsion‐based technique for approximately 2 miles.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 9 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Larry Theis, P.E.

Project Principal,
City Municipal
Engineer
City of Orinda
Wilder Subdivision Development, Design Oversight
Project Value, 2013‐current
Installation of road, storm drain, parks, basins, staging area, trails.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Buchanan Airport Runway/Pavement Rehab, Project Manager $3 million, 2011‐ 2012
Cold in Place Recycling of center section of runway ‐ using emulsion‐ based technique.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Vasco Road Overlay, Lead Designer
$2.5 million, 2008‐2009
Accelerated shovel ready project to mill and inlay HMA along Vasco Road for approximately 3 miles.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Lower Walnut Creek Channel Desilt and Levee Raising, Lead Designer/ Project Manager
$5 million, 2007
Removal sediment from channel bottom to improve flood control capacity in North Concord to address ACOE new requirements.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Walnut Creek & Grayson Creek Channel Desilting, Resident Engineer & Inspector
$3 million, 2006
Removal sediment from channel bottom to improve flood control capacity in Concord and Pleasant Hill area.

Contra Costa County Public Works
San Ramon Creek Bank Restoration, Lead Designer/Project Manager & Resident Engineer/Inspector
$1.2 million, 2005‐2006
Designed embankment project with willow cuttings/brush layering.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Dougherty Valley Development, Design/Project Oversight for Civil and Landscape Improvements
$150 million, 2002‐2005
5,500‐unit master planned subdivision community with single & multi‐ family units, parks, creeks, community college campus.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 10 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2d: Scope of Services and Planned Approach
Staff augmentation is a core service provided by AnchorCM. We are proposing Larry Theis, AnchorCM President, as Clayton’s City Engineer. Larry will lead the AnchorCM team and be the City’s single point of contact to provide the scope of services as described in this RFP. Larry has over 20 years of experience working for public agencies. Up until a few months ago, Larry was the City of Orinda (Orinda) Director of Public Works and Engineering Services as well as their Assistant City Manager. In many ways, Larry still approaches issues more like a public agency staff than a consultant. This is a major differentiator between AnchorCM and our competitors. Larry understands other considerations and duties that are often asked of public agency staff with his municipal engineering background.

The City of Clayton and Orinda are quite similar in many aspects. Both agencies are relatively small with similar challenges but still strive to provide excellent services to their residents. There are similarities in how the City separated the engineering work compared to the system that Larry established at Orinda.

The only difference isthat the City engineering function was performed by Orinda’sin‐house staff whereas the City of Clayton is seeking a consultant to perform this work. For both agencies, the other scopes of work were performed by consultants. Larry was successful in Orinda and can bring his expertise to assist the City of Clayton. By selecting our team, Clayton will receive the benefit of hiring city engineer/public works director within the same region/county that is quite in tune with the current needs and processes to fully manage your department.

1. City Engineering:

AnchorCM is proposing Larry to serve as Clayton’s City Engineer. Larry is familiar with this role as he was the Orinda’s City Engineer and the Director of Public Works and Engineering Services.

City Council meetings: As Clayton’s City Engineer, Larry understands the importance of attending City Council meetings. Larry has extensive experience in this arena as he performed this function for the past 8 years at Orinda. Larry has prepared and reviewed staff reports and made presentations at past Orinda city council meetings. Larry hasresponded to councilmembers as well as public inquiries during the council meetings. As for closed sessions of the Council meetings, they often involved difficult issues with legal complications. Larry has been able to breakdown these complex issuesfor the councilmembersto aid their discussions. As a demonstration of Larry’s competence in this arena, the Orinda City Manager had tasked Larry to be the Acting City Manager whenever he is not available for both the open and closed sessions of the city council meetings.

Internal staff meetings: Larry understands the importance of coordinating with other City staff and departments and the internalstaff meetings are helpful to improve coordination between the Engineering Department with other City departments/functions. In Orinda, Larry was an active participant in these weekly internal staff meetings. Larry understands participation of Clayton’s internal meetings is highly desired and plans to attend them and engage with in‐house staff members.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Larry has prepared and reviewed several editions of Orinda’s Capital Improvement Program documents. This includes holding CIP workshops with councilmembers to obtain initial feedback; preparing the draft CIPs, presenting recommendations, prioritization, presenting draft CIPs at council meetings; responding to councilmembers and public inquiries; and finalizing the annual CIP documents. There are typically more “wants” than available funding. As part of the CIP process, Larry had led discussions with city managers, councilmembers, as well as the public on prioritization of the limited funds. Based on those discussions, Larry has prepared prioritization recommendations for the city City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 11 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
managers and councilmembersto consider and discuss. Larry is knowledgeable of grant opportunitiesthat may bring in additional resources to the City. He has secured several grants during the last round of One Bay Area Grant (OBAG2) and completed them successfully. In addition, Larry led Orinda’s discussion and prioritization of over $55 million of roadway repair bonds/add on sales tax funds. During Larry tenure at Orinda, he and his staff raised the Orinda Pavement Condition Index (PCI) from 46 (Fair Condition) to 85 (Very Good). The roadway program/projects received multiple League of California Cities awards. Larry was also invited to be a presenter at the 2017 League of the California Cities Public Works Officer Institute Conference to discuss Orinda’s roadway program. At Orinda, Larry led his team to complete multiple CIP projects that received American Public Works Association (APWA) and League of California Cities awards.

Larry understands a big part of the CIP process is also to coordinate closely with Finance and is looking forward to the collaboration with the City.

Budget: In addition to the CIP, Larry understands that as the Clayton City Engineer, he would participate in the annual budget discussions that usually occur before beginning of each fiscal year. Similar to the CIP preparations, Larry has extensive experience in creating budgets and worked closely with the city manager and finance director as the Orinda Director of Public Works and Engineering Services. Larry will be able to bring his knowledge and experience to the City. Larry understands his participation in discussions with Clayton City Council, City Manager, and Finance Director will be required.

Availability to the public and private developers: Larry will be available to the public and private developers dealing with the engineering functions of the City government. Since the needs are unpredictable and would be too costly to dedicate a full‐time person at City Hall, AnchorCM proposes that public and private developers contact Larry directly to set up appointments and virtual meetings. Because of the remotework requirement of the pandemic, more people are familiar with virtual meetings. This will reduce the need for Larry to travel to City Hall. In addition, this will allow more flexibility for availability compared to holding a dedicated office time, which might be inconvenient forsome. However, if needed, Larry residesin nearby Concord, and can respond onsite quickly. AnchorCM’s office is located within Contra Costa County (in Lafayette) with a majority of our staff working and residing nearby who can respond immediately if necessary.

Coordination with other agencies and representing the City: Larry spent much of his professional career in Contra Costa County. Larry has  established professional relationships with staff  at many Contra Costa County  public  agencies. It is typical and necessary to coordinate with nearby agencies. In addition to coordinating, Larry has led joint projects that received APWA and League of California Cities awards.

Assistance in solicitation for CIP design work: For smaller agencies such as the City, it is not cost effective to have in‐house designers. Larry is knowledgeable in soliciting designers and done so for many of his projects and will be able to assist the City through the process.

Assistance  in procurement of  contractors for public works  construction:  Larry is knowledgeable in the procurement of contractors for public work construction. The technical design consultantstypically do not complete the front‐end administration specifications. Larry will be able to merge the City’s requirements with the technical requirements to solicit construction bids. During his time at Contra Costa County Public Works, Larry was the “go‐to” person for construction contractor procurements.

Address failed infrastructure for immediate safety concerns: Orinda is one of the oldest communities in the County and has aging infrastructure. During his tenure at Orinda, Larry was often challenged to address the failed infrastructure, especially during rainstorm events. Perhaps the most challenging time was during the City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 12 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
2017 rainstorm events. Orinda suffered storm damage reaching into the multi‐million‐dollar range. The largest damage was a major sinkhole underneath a collector road for most of northeast Orinda that created a long detour. By working closely with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, and resource agencies, Larry was able to perform emergency restoration of this roadway within 4 months, from selecting the restoration method, to design, to construction completion. Among all the roadway failures that resulted in road closure within Contra Costa County during 2017, this was the fastest restoration effort. The quick restoration minimized the disruption to residents. The project won the Orinda Mayor’s Award as well as an APWA project of the year award. By working with FHWA, Caltrans, FEMA, and Cal OES, Larry recovered $3 million of disaster relief aids for Orinda as result of 2017 storm damages. Larry has been instrumental in improving Orinda’s infrastructure, as captured in the September 15, 2021 edition of Lamorinda Weekly:

Council Member Darlene Gee added, "I can't even really imagine that you're not going to be with us!" She said that the greatest gift was his help with Orinda's roads and infrastructure, attributing his "magnificent work" to bringing Orinda's infrastructure up to a much, much better condition than it was in when he started.

Familiarity with regional, state, and federal transportation funding entities: Larry is familiar with regional, state, and federal transportation funding entities. Larry has experience in applying for grants with these entities. Larry has been successful in obtaining multiple grants for Orinda, including during the last round of One Bay Area Grant cycle (OBAG 2). Larry completed multiple CIP projects that require coordination with Caltrans Local Assistance Office, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and resource agencies. During Larry’s tenure at Orinda, APWA Norcal Chapter awarded Orinda multiple awards. For transportation planning and grant opportunities, Larry understands the importance of participating in CCTA’s Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC).

Larry will represent the City at Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC), the RTPC that the City belongs to.

Familiarity to San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and Contra Costa Clean Water Program: Anchor is familiar with MRP 2.0 and understands the City, along with other agencies, are in the process of working with the Water Board on MRP 3.0. Larry is familiar with the challenges of the new proposed requirements, such as the onerous requirement to implement green infrastructure on pavement projects. AnchorCM understands that the Laura Hoffmeister, the Assistant to the City Manager, has been representing the City at the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for many years and has extensive MRP knowledge. Some MRP requirements will need to be implemented as part of the engineering work. We look forward to coordinating closely with Ms. Hoffmeister.

AnchorCM recognizes cost is very important for a smaller agency such as the City. While Larry will be the City’s single point of contact, the engineering work may be performed by other AnchorCM staff with lower billing rates in an attempt to minimize costs. Larry will assign and oversee all work. We propose that Jason Chen be one of the main Anchor staff to support Larry with the City’s engineering needs. Jason, Anchor’s Engineering Manager, is a registered California professional civil engineer. Larry and Jason have successfully worked together at Orinda for 5 years. After Larry was promoted to the Orinda Assistant City Manager position, Jason was promoted to the City Engineer position. Whenever Larry was not available, Jason had stepped in as Larry’s backup to perform the same functions as the Acting Director of Public Works and Engineering. We believe this arrangement will work well at the City. If more specialized needs arise, AnchorCM will reach out to technical subconsultants that can assist if necessary. They will act as the City’s on‐call technicalsubconsultants. Please see the following sectionsregarding these technicalsubconsultants.

AnchorCM also has access to several other subconsultant partners through our successful working City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 13 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
relationships developed over the years.

2. General Engineering Services (non‐General Fund Capital Projects) We have found that with Larry providing overall management of City projects and utilizing technical subconsultants to provide detail design, we can provide a format for successful project delivery. Larry has extensive experience and is very comfortable with this format. This is the same set‐up that Larry operated in at Orinda. AnchorCM is familiar with many technicalsubconsultants that perform work for Contra Costa County agencies and could provide the City access to these partner subconsultants as needed.

For smaller projects or not required by funding requirements, AnchorCM can perform the preliminary engineering work. When technical experts are needed, AnchorCM has access to technical subconsultants, included but not limit to the consultants identified under the City Engineering category scope of work.

For larger projects, Anchor would recommend the City to perform project‐specific solicitations. This will allow the City to select the most qualified technical subconsultant for that project. Sometimes, grant requirements, such as federal grants will require the City to perform project‐specific solicitations as well.

AnchorCM will assistthe City through the solicitation process. To avoid any conflicts of interests, AnchorCM will not submit any proposals when we assist the City with the solicitation process.

AMG: Traffic Engineering
AMG will be the technical subconsultant that will assist the City with traffic engineering needs.

Experience with Concord On‐Call and Local Community Goals ‐ Key AMG staff are currently providing on‐ call planning and engineering services to the City of Concord and various other local jurisdictions in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Solano Counties. Their extensive experience in the Bay Area includes more than 30 years on numerous traffic engineering projects, making them a well‐suited partner, committed to continuing this service to your community. Their team has been working alongside City of Concord staff for more than five years, so they understand the surrounding community goals and objectives for the Clayton on‐call assignment and the work that needs to be performed.

AMG’s focus is on providing innovative solutions respecting local preferences and understanding the myriad of environmental regulations and design guidelines that affect today’s transportation projects.

They manage the project development process proactively, recognizing that successful transportation projects require more than just good technicalsolutions—they must be sustainable economically, socially, and environmentally. They work with clients and stakeholders to achieve that, while supporting cost‐ effective solutions. The services AMG can provide are as follows:
 Preparing Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) for CIP Projects  Safety Analysis, Traffic Calming and Complete Streets Design  Traffic Operations: Analysis, Simulation, Modeling and Impacts  Signal Design and Timing
 Conduct Engineering Speed Surveys per MUTCD
 Parking Studies, Design, Operations and Management
 Pavement and Drainage Design
 Intelligent Transportation Systems
 Traffic Management Centers
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 14 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
 Adaptive Traffic Control Systems
 Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures
 Grant Funding, Programming, Budgeting
 Traffic Impact Studies/Peer Review
 Travel Demand Forecasting and Modeling
 Transportation Demand Management
 Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Analysis
 Transit Planning and Design
 Review traffic handling plans
 Public Hearings/Outreach/Meetings
 Community Outreach, Engagement and Facilitation
 Data Collection & Analysis
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Traffic operations analysis bridges the gap between
transportation planning, traffic engineering, and design. AMG engineers and planners have many years of experience in analyzing traffic operations in saturated urban or under‐ saturated rural environments to develop realistic solutions to complex traffic issues. They use state‐of‐the‐art microscopic computer simulation software, such as Transyt, Synchro, CORSIM, and VISSIM to perform traffic operations and traffic simulation analyses. Based on the extensive operations
analysis and safety analysis, we can determine the roadway geometry, signing and striping details, signal operations and lane geometry, transition lengths, and lane widths. The operations details are then incorporated into the design plans/PS&E, including construction and bidding supports.

COMPLETE STREET DESIGN/ BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN
A Complete Street accommodates all users regardless of
ability and offers a range of transportation modes from walking to freight movement, as well as the activities generated by adjacent land uses, such as sidewalk cafés, on‐street parking, urban forestry and open space, and social interaction. We understand that designing streets for all users, specifically the disabled, children,senior citizens, and otherswith unique transportation needs, involves a multidisciplinary approach. Our approach includes peeling back the layers of a street’s obvious and visible functions to fully understand its hidden, lesser known, and indirect functions to provide reasonable and practical solutions that do not detract from the roadway and transportation network functionality.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM DESIGN AND TIMING
Our partner AMG has the expertise to provide a full‐range of traffic signal planning, design, and City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 15 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
construction services from isolated signalized intersections to computer‐ based traffic signalsystems. They have prepared traffic signal and intersection designs at hundreds of locations across the nation. Their experience ranges from simple, single‐intersection designs to complex multi‐phase signals, interstate interchanges, and problematic design constraints resolution. This experience involves different system types and communication media, including Time‐Based Coordination (non‐interconnected), microwave‐based coordination, hardwire interconnect with an on‐street master controller, spread spectrum radio, PC‐based systems (closed loop systems), central computer systems, and fiber optic cable. Their extensive experience in traffic control system design includes traffic control and advance warning signals; lane control and counter flow systems; and special purpose traffic systems.

Their experience also includes numerous advance warning, emergency vehicle, and railway preemption signal design and has undertaken signal preemption and detector technology studies for clients.

ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS
While building an entire new transportation network isn’t feasible, AMG has been using ITS to help with the increasing traffic congestion. They apply ITS technology to the transportation infrastructure to manage and improve the reliability and efficiency of the transportation network. Their core strength has been in deploying Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS). Their team has been educating traffic engineers and practitioners on the benefits of ATCS and the need to plan funding opportunities to keep the system operational. AMG hasrecently been involvedwith the deployment of more than 20 adaptive signalsystems in the United States that are helping to relieve traffic congestion.

AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES (ATSPM)
The ability to look at performance measures such as “percent arrivals on red” and look at occurrences of split failures for individual intersections, or groups of intersections, is revolutionizing the overall Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operations (TSM&O) performance at progressive cities and DOTs. AMG staff are assisting in the deployment of ATSPM to manage and monitor signal systems for multiple cities and jurisdictions including the City of Irvine, City of Hayward, City of Concord, and City of Dublin. Their professionals are working alongside the City of Dublin to set up the software for ATSPMs and assist city staff to understand the software, coordinate installation, generate reports, identify anomalies, and train staff on best practices.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
The AMG team has the capacity to provide expert technicalservice for every aspect of ITS. AMG is a leader in the research and application of leading ITS solutions and the design and deployment of ITS systems.

Expertise includes field integration of CCTV systems, automated incident detection, dynamic message signing, and driver information displays. The future of technology for transportation includes new approaches to managing traffic congestion, improving safety, and providing transit passengers with real‐ time travel information. AMG has combined ITS with a full range of transportation/transit services to provide new solutions to the challenges facing transportation agencies and authorities.

GRANT AND FEDERAL PROJECTS
When we work with you to prepare grant applications, our primary goal is to obtain enough information to match your needswith available grantsto fund your projects. We develop an application strategy, assess the project, prepare the application, and provide technicalsupport forstate and federally funded projects.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 16 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
We have excellent working relationships with funding agencies that help us create an effective approach to producing winning grant applications.

PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
Communicating concepts and technical materials is critical to the success of any transportation project.

We routinely help our clients manage public participation and community outreach to educate and build consensus between governing agencies, stakeholders, and potential project opponents.

BSK: Geotechnical Engineering and Material Testing
The BSK geotechnical team will be the technical subconsultant partner that will assist the City with geotechnical engineering services, such as preparation of geotechnical paper studies that rely on existing subsurface data and geologic mapping, geotechnical investigations, geotechnical peer reviews, geotechnical review of plans and specifications, as well as as‐needed consultation and responses to RFI’s and submittals during construction. BSK and the geotechnical engineers who willsupport this contract also have the capacity to support the AnchorCM team to manage Quality Assurance materials testing and special inspection services during construction. These services would include laboratory testing in BSK’s 5000 square foot Caltrans and AASHTO‐certified materials laboratory, compaction testing, rebar inspection, batch plant inspection, concrete sampling and testing, asphalt concrete sampling and testing, masonry inspection, torque testing, epoxy dowel inspection, anchor inspections, shop welding inspection, and field welding inspection. BSK’s field staff have extensive working knowledge of the various building codes and materials compliance testing procedures and are adept in applying their expertise.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
Larry’s experience in land development review included performing the day‐to‐day land development engineering work for the Dougherty Valley development, the largest recent development processed by the Contra Costa County Public Works. At Orinda, Larry oversaw the Wilder Development, the largest recent development in Orinda.

AnchorCM is pleased to partner with CSG and BSK to perform these services. While Larry will provide general oversight of this work as Clayton’s City Engineer, CSG will perform the bulk of these services with the support of BSK, if necessary. This is the same type of arrangement Larry successfully implemented for Orinda. Although not identified in this Request for Proposal, AnchorCM recommends that the City designate a City Surveyor. Since most of the City Surveyor work will be related to land development activities, CSG is proposing David Rubcic, a California registered Land Surveyor to serve as City’s Surveyor.

Below are CSG’s approaches to land development review and surveying.

New Development Entitlements
 Review tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, architectural review, and other entitlement applications. Coordinate review with other City staff and/or outside agencies as needed.  Attend follow‐up meetings with Planning staff, the applicant, or others as needed to resolve issues regarding the proposal. Review subsequent submittals of the proposal.  Assist the City with development of conditions of approval, development agreements, and other requirements associated with development applications. Assist City in negotiating with developers regarding terms of agreements or conditions(Additional tasks associated with the entitlement process are described above).

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 17 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Plan Review
Review final maps, improvement plans, and landscape plans. Review includes evaluation of required records, studies, grading and improvement plan, and additional materials submitted by the design professional. Confirm that plans conform to City standard design criteria, conditions of approval, and infrastructure or other master plans.
 Each plan review will be accompanied with a letter summarizing the red‐line comments addressed to the applicant’s engineer or landscape architect, with a copy to City staff and the applicant. A complete red‐lined set of drawings and any reports will be returned to the design professionalsfor use in their corrections. At the applicant’s discretion, the commentsummary letter and red‐lined plan sheets can be scanned and submitted electronically to the design consultant to expedite the review process.
 Although we understand that meetings will not be required, CSG is available to meet with the applicant/representative and City staff to review comments or to delineate the standards which are not being met, in order to facilitate timely completion of the review and meeting the maximum goal of two plan checks. CSG will accept and review subsequent submittals electronically, when feasible, in order to expedite the review process.  Soils reports will be evaluated and confirmation of recommendations will be included on the plans. Boundary conditions will be evaluated to maintain continuity with surrounding properties and maintain existing drainage patterns.
 Construction erosion control and post‐construction water quality control will be evaluated for compliance with the storm water quality management permit in effect for the City.  Assist the City with development of conditions of approval, development agreements, and other requirements associated with development applications. Assist City in negotiating with developers regarding terms of agreements or conditions (Additional tasks associated with the entitlement process are described above).
 Confirm that the developer has obtained necessary permits or approvals from other public agencies as needed, and that plans conform to the City’s NPDES Municipal Regional Permit requirements for storm water treatment and detention.
 Review and recommend approval of engineering bond estimates and subdivision guarantees.  Assist the staff in preparing subdivision improvement agreements, other agreements (including stormwatertreatment measure and landscape maintenance agreements), and staff reports.
 Meet with developers, consultants, and other agencies on behalf of staff, as requested.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 18 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Plan Review Submittals Schedule
Development of hard‐and‐fast schedules for completion of development review and plan review work is difficult as timing and scope of projects is not always known. Examples of time frames for completing certain tasks are provided below.

TYPE TIME FRAME
Pre‐application entitlement
review
Review application material in advance of requested meetings; complete formal comments and submit to Planning within two weeks of meeting
Review Tentative Map
Application or Other
Entitlement Package
Fifteen (15) working days of notice of submittal by City Prepare Conditions of
Approval
Prepare within one week of request by Planning, or within reasonable shorter time frame if needed to meet hearing date
Complete Improvement
Plan (1st Check)
Fifteen (15) working days of notice of submittal by City Complete Subsequent
Improvement Plan as
Needed
Ten (10) working days of notice of submittal by City
Prepare fee estimate,
review bond estimate, or
prepare permit
Ten (10) working days of request
Miscellaneous Assignments Dependent on scope; typically between five (5) and ten (10) working days
Turnaround times include pickup, QA/QC, and delivery.

CITY SURVEYOR ‐ MAP REVIEW SERVICES
The traditional role of the City Surveyor is to ensure that maps, legal descriptions, and plats prepared for private developments are technically correct. However, more often than not, the City Surveyor will also ensure that the documents are comprehensive of City requirements and completed in accordance with the California Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances (traditionally the functions of the City Engineer).

The City Surveyor’s daily functions include reviewing the documents submitted by private developers, owners, engineers or surveyors, review and provide comments, and sign final documents when approved.

The City Surveyor customarily also meets with and advises the City Engineer and private applicants when complicated or unusual circumstances arise.

Detailed Scope of Work
Under the “Map Review” scope of work, our CSG team proposes to review Final Maps, Parcel Maps, Lot Line Adjustments, Lot Mergers, or other documents per the following:
 Review for compliance with the approved Tentative Map and Conditions of Approval (maps)  Review for compliance with the California Subdivision Map Act  Review for compliance with the Professional Land Surveyor’s Act  Review of closure calculations
 Review of title information for the property, including existing easements and any other relevant land encumbrances, based on information contained in a preliminary title report and other documents to be furnished by applicant
 Review of record documents (deeds and maps) of the subject and adjacent properties City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 19 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
 Review, seal and sign final Mylar copies and certificates as Acting City Surveyor or Technical Reviewer
 Preparation of Staff Report for City Council Approval, if required  Conformance with the project improvement plans and other documents Legal Documents
The types of legal documents that may be prepared by the City include Parcel Maps, Lot Line Adjustments, and Lot Mergers. Additionally, plats and legal descriptions may need to be prepared for public projects that require right‐of‐way take. For street dedication or vacation documents, as well as easement grants and abandonments, the burden of preparing the plats and legal descriptions are typically put on the private party in conjunction with private development of the affected parcel(s). Those documents may, however, also be prepared as stand‐alone documents/instruments by the City Surveyor. Lastly, records of survey may also be prepared if dictated by the Professional Land Surveyor’s Act.

All documents are produced using the same level of care and quality control as mapping reviews, and prepared in conformity to the following legal codes:

California Subdivision Map Act
 Professional Land Surveyor’s Act
 Streets and Highways Code
 Civil Code
 Other relevant sections of the Government Code
In addition, all maps or certificates are prepared using local industry standards and pre‐established City requirements.

Working closely with CSG would be BSK for geotechnical issues. BSK will assist the City with geotechnical engineering services, such as preparation of geotechnical peer review and, geotechnical review of plans and specifications.

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services
AnchorCM is pleased to partner with F&A to perform these services. AnchorCM will provide general oversight including the role of the GHAD Manager. F&A will provide the administration and assessment levy services. If it is necessary for the GHAD requires geotechnical engineering work, BSK will provide the geotechnical engineering services.

F&A
Our partner Francisco & Associates (“F&A”) and Anchor understands the history and circumstances surrounding each agency’s special financing districts are different and the revenue generated is critical to long‐term viability. For this reason, we take a comprehensive approach to managing special financing districts and working with public sector clients. For the City, our approach will begin with establishing a strong foundation for the City’s Special Financing Districts (the “SFDs” or “Districts”) that is not only compliant with the existing legal landscape for assessments but will also be based on the following principles and practices: accountability, consistency, efficiency, effectiveness, and transparency.

We understand that the administration of assessment districts is not just database work, updating an engineer’s report, and placement of assessments on the property tax roll but rather being an extension of City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 20 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
staff that may be expected to coordinatewith multiple City departments and represent the City by assisting with community outreach and education. We take this responsibility very seriously which is why we will undertake a comprehensive onboarding process if we are given the opportunity to serve the City. The purpose of onboarding is to familiarize ourselves with the nuances of your SFD Program and build strong relationships with the City departments and personnel that we will be working with on a regular basis.

Our onboarding process will be led by your Assessment Engineer, Eduardo Espinoza, P.E. and Project Manager, Brian Brown, and begins with a kickoff meeting to better understand the City’s goals, objectives, timelines, and important history surrounding the Districts. Following the kickoff meeting we will interview City staff, as necessary. Interviewing staff helps us identify the role and responsibilities of individuals who are involved in the various tasks that impact the SFD Program. This provides a better understanding of the process and procedures, workflow, internal and external timelines, and specific challenges facing City departments and their personnel which includes the dynamics and priorities of City Council.

An audit of the District parcel databases, fiscal review of the Districts, review of formation and administration documents including improvement diagrams, and review of the City’s past approach to managing the Districts will also be essential elements of our onboarding process with the City.

F&A and Anchor will audit the City’s existing District parcel databases to confirm that all parcels within the boundaries of the Districts and any zones of benefit are captured correctly and that no parcels outside the District’s boundaries are included. Our review of the District parcel databases will include a review of the parcels to confirm property characteristics and their land use are assigned correctly, the correct zone has been assigned to each parcel when applicable, a review of the maximum and applied assessment rates, and that each parcel has been assessed correctly based on the methodology within the Engineer’s Reports or formation documents. The purpose of this review is to ensure the City receives all the revenue it is entitled to and that the District data is accurate because it is the foundation in which the City bases decisions.

The purpose of our fiscal review of the Districts are to get a sense of the overall fiscal health of the Districts any zones of benefit. The review includes a look at the assessment capacity of each District, the amount historically levied for each District/zone, fund balances (operating and capital reserves), budgets, and upcoming capital improvement/replacement needs. This fiscal review will result in identifying which Districts have surpluses, deficits, and those which may need to be monitored more closely due to limited revenue capacity. This review assists in discussions with City staff that may be underfunded or may soon become underfunded.

The F&A project team will review formation and administration documents and the diagrams showing all existing improvements. The primary purpose of this review is to ensure the annual Engineer’s Report is congruent with the formation/annexation documents, confirm the quantification of special and general benefits by improvement type are appropriately documented and supported, that only parcelsthatreceive a special benefit are assessed, and that the City is complying with the provisions of Proposition 218 and case law. Ourreviewoften resultsin recommendationsto strengthen the Engineer’s Report andwill inform the City of potential issues related to compliance with state law.

The collective efforts of our onboarding process will provide a deeper understanding of the Districtsin Year 1, that would otherwise take years. We fully expect these efforts will result in more concise documents, better policies, efficient procedures, clearer communication, and a more effective and transparent SFD Program that functions consistent with industry best practices. The F&A approach to onboarding new City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 21 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
clients demonstrates our commitment to keep staff informed of the annual administrative process and notify staff immediately of any issues or inconsistencies. Our goal is to position ourselves as the City’s expert resource and an extension of staff by being extremely proactive, not reactive. The scope of services on the following pages were drafted for the City to address the requirements outlined in Exhibit A, Section 4 of the City’s RFP.

Homes and hills in Clayton, CA
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 22 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2e: References
Below we have included references for our team and partners.

AnchorCM:

City of Orinda
Steve Salomon, Former City Manager
(559) 393‐6830
City of Orinda
David Biggs, City Manager
(925) 253‐4220
City of Orinda
Amy Worth, Councilmember and former Mayor
(925) 212‐4511
Contra Costa County
Warren Lai, Deputy Public Works Director
(925) 313‐2180
Town of Moraga
Shawn Knapp, Public Works Director/Town
Engineer
(925) 888‐7027
CSG
City of Albany
Mark Hurley, PE, Public Works Director/City
Engineer
(415) 850‐7058
City of Pleasanton
Adam Nelkie, Senior Engineer
(925) 818‐4418
City of San Leandro
Jerome Ababa, PE, Associate Engineer
(510) 577‐3412
AMG
City of Concord
Abhishek Parikh, Transportation Engineer
925.671.3129
City of Hayward
Charmine Solla, P.E., T.E., Traffic Engineer
510.583.4730
City of San Rafael
Rafat Raie, Deputy Director of Public Works,
415.485.3473
BSK
City of Pleasanton
Adam Nelkie, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
(925) 931‐5676
City of Berkeley
Tiffany Pham, PE, QSD, Associate Civil Engineer
(510) 981‐6427
Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Slava Gospodchikov, PE, Engineering Services
Division Manager
(925) 313‐2316
F&A
City of Brentwood
Aaron Wanden, Park Maintenance Manager
(925) 516‐5111
City of Hercules
Mike Roberts, Public Works Director
(510) 799‐8241
City of Oakley
Kevin Rohani, City Engineer/Public Works
Director
(925) 625‐7003
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 23 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2f: Schedule of Key Dates
AnchorCM has reviewed the schedule in the RFP and can comply with it as is. If chosen, AnchorCM has the capacity to commence work in the second half of March 2022. If possible, it will be helpful to overlap with the existing consultant to transition work. Based on our understanding of past City practices, the term is for one year with the potential for annual renewal.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 24 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2g: Modifications or Objections
AnchorCM is proposing the following modifications to the City’s agreement:

Section 7(a): Preference is to use the phrase: “endeavor to comply with applicable laws, regulations, and codes…”
Section 8: Add “Consultant makes no warranties, guarantees, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise in connection with consultants services.”
Section 11:
a. ii. (1) Better to say: “or Insurer’s equivalent”.
a. iii. (7) Better to say: “Contractual Liability for non‐professional services claims with respect to this Contract.”
a. v. Better to say: “or endorsements applicable when required by written contract or agreement”. d. Requires coverage for contractual liability under the Professional Liability policy, which is not available.

Professional Liability policies include an exclusion for liability assumed by contract, unless the firm would be liable in the absence of the contract. Better to say: “to include limited contractual liability applicable to this Agreement”
e. ii. The exception is professional liability. Defense costs are not in addition to the limits. Defense costs due erode the policy limits.
g. v. The exception for separation of insured is the professional liability policy Section 12(a): Omit: “volunteer” and “agents” from indemnified parties.

Section 12(b):

Add the following to the end of the paragraph: “This duty does not include the duty to pay for or to provide an upfront defense against claims or allegations arising out of the subject matter of this clause.” Replace the phrase: “that arise out of, pertain to, or related to” with the phrase: “to the extend actually caused by”.

Section 28: Preference to include: “The Consultant shall not be responsible for delays from any and all causes beyond its reasonable control.”
Add: “In the event of any dispute between the Partiesrelated to this Agreement or this Project, the Parties agree to first negotiate in good faith toward a resolutionwith participation by representatives of each Party holding sufficient authority to resolve the dispute. Ifsuch dispute cannot be resolved in this manner, before any action or litigation is initiated other than as required to secure lien rights, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation using the American Arbitration Association or another mediator as mutually selected by the Parties. Such mediation shall be completed within a reasonable period of time following either Party’s written demand with each Party to bear an equal share of the mediation fees and its own respective attorney and consultant fees and costs.”
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 25 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Section 2h: Cost of Services

1. City Engineering
Based on review of the City’s agreement with the existing engineering consultant, the past practice is for AnchorCM to propose a monthly minimum along with hour rates and charges.

For the monthly minimum, AnchorCM is proposing a monthly fee of $13,636.

This is based on the following:

Estimate overall hours between 15‐20 per weeks, assumed 15 hours o Larry Theis: 7 hours at the Project Principal rate of $239   = $1,673 o Jason Chen: 8 hours at the Senior Engineer rate of $217    =$1,736 o Subtotal per week =$3,409
o Multiply the subtotal per week by 4 for a monthly rate =$13,636 If the actual hours exceed this estimate regularly (3 months or more) or excessively (more than 20% in any given month), AnchorCM reserves the right to notify the City that additional hours are necessary for a particular month(s) at the hourly rates provided. This would be agreed upon by the City prior to commencement of work.

If technical studies (such as formal traffic study, traffic counts, etc.) or field surveys are required from subconsultants, the additional costs will be billed based on the subconsultant fees plus 10%. These types of costs will be above the monthly minimum.

Please reference rate sheets in appendix b for hourly rates for services.

2. General Engineering Services (non‐General Fund Capital Projects) It is not feasible to estimate the costs for the non‐general fund capital projects at this point. Each project will need to be evaluate separately. AnchorCM and the subconsultant teams have submitted hourly rates. Please see Appendix b for the hourly rate tables. A separate proposal will need to be prepared for each capital project. In addition, grant requirements may require the City to perform separate solicitations.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
Due to the difficulty in estimating land development activities, it is not feasible to estimate the monthly costs for land development review and permitting services. The cost will be billed based on subconsultant fees plus 10%.

Please reference rate sheets in appendix b for hourly rates for services.

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services
AnchorCM will provide general oversight of the assessment districts. The oversight costs will be included as part of the City Engineering costs, except for the GHAD Manager duties. AnchorCM is proposing an annual fee of $2,390. This is the assumption of 10 hours per year for Larry Theis at the Project Principal rate of $239. This is in addition to Francisco & Associates’ cost proposal.

Please reference rate sheets in appendix b for hourly rates for services.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 26 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Francisco & Associates, Inc. proposes the following lump sum fees to provide the Scope of Services outlined in the proposal.

ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District Annual Administration Fee $2,500 per year Street Light Assessment District Annual Administration Fee   $3,500 per year High Street Bridge Assessment District Annual Administration Fee   $500 per year Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District Annual Administration Fee   $500 per year Oak Street Bridge Assessment District Annual Administration Fee    $500 per year Oak Street Sewer Assessment District Annual Administration Fee   $500 per year Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District Annual Administration Fee $3,500 per year

REIMBURSABLES
Reimbursable expenses such as overnight mailings, recordation fees, mileage, County maps and data are in addition to the lump sum fees above and will be billed at cost plus 10%, but reimbursables will not exceed $500. Mileage will be billed at the annual Federal mileage rate ($0.58 per mile).

If it is necessary for the GHAD requires geotechnical engineering work, BSK will provide the geotechnical engineering services, such as preparation of geotechnical paper studies that rely on existing subsurface data and geologic mapping, geotechnical investigations, geotechnical peer reviews, geotechnical review of plans and specifications, as well as as‐needed consultation and responses to RFI’s and submittals during construction. It is not possible to determine the scope at this point and separate cost proposal will be presented at a later date to the City if necessary.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 27 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Appendix a – Resumes of Key Personnel (continued from Section 2c) Jason Chen, P.E.

Engineering Manager
Experience Summary
Jason has over 22 years of engineering experience with over 17 years in municipal engineering for public agencies. Jason has worked County and City levels of government, specifically in engineering and public works. He brings these skills to AnchorCM to consult and provide services to Northern California agency clients.

Experience
22 years
Education/Training
UCLA: B.S. Civil &
Environmental
Engineering, B.A.

Economics.

UCLA Extension:

Professional Designation
in Construction
Management
Affiliations
American Public Works
Association
Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of Orinda, City Engineer (2017‐2021)
Public Works and Engineering Operations
Responsible for capital improvement projects, engineering, and lighting and landscape district. Highlights include oversaw capital projects, recovered $3 million emergency rainstorm disaster relief funds, presented and prepared of staff reports and resolution for City Council, public outreach for projects and new programs, worked closely with City Attorneys on flooding and landslide case, procured regional and federal grants for projects, CCTA Technical Coordination Committee member, and performed Acting Director of Public Works and Engineering duties for extended period of time.

City of Orinda
Parking Program, City Engineer
Project Value, 2018‐2021
Created a residential and a commuter permit parking programs as well as a new red flag parking restriction program for a high‐risk fire zone.

City of Orinda
2017 Storm Damaged Projects, Senior Civil Engineer

3.5 million, 2017‐2019
Senior Civil Engineer focused on emergency federal funding recovery efforts Emergency repair of 72” diameter collapsed corrugated metal culvert, landslides, and other storm related damages. Recovered all eligible expenses from CalOES, FEMA, and FHWA.

City of Orinda
Downtown‐Bryant Way ADA Ramp & lighting, Project Manager $1 million, 2017
Installing new switchback ADA accessible ramp structure with City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 28 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Jason Chen P.E
Engineering
Manager
landscaping and overhead lighting.

Contra Costa County
Iron Horse Corridor Mgmt. Program, Iron Horse Corridor Manager Project Value, 2016‐2017
Manage the 18.5 miles right of way of the Iron Horse Corridor for public use as well as providing staff support to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee.

Contra Costa County
Special Districts, Special Districts Manager
Project Value, 2014‐2017
Contra Costa Special Districts operations includes landscaping, park and recreation programs, street lighting, transit, wastewater collection and treatment, and water treatment. Oversaw the implementation of 8 EBRPD Measure WW funded capital projects that included, bocce courts, new/modified play structures, a new mini‐park, a new plaza, landscape upgrades, a new trail, and a new concession/announcer building.

Contra Costa County
Highway Bridge Program, Associate Civil Engineer
Project Value, 2010‐2013
Managed Contra Costa County’s bridge projects, investigated scour critical bridges, established plan of actions, and applied for HBP funding for new bridge projects.

Contra Costa County
Iron Horse Pedestrian Overcrossing at Treat Boulevard, Project MGR $16 million, 2007 to 2010
This pedestrian/bicycle crossing allow Iron Horse Trail user to safely cross over a busy 8‐lane roadway. This bridge is also the gate way to the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village. This project won the 2011 California Transportation Foundation Project of the Year, the 2011 California Greenway and Trail Association Construction Award, and the 2012 IDEAS2 award for innovation in structural steel design from the American Institute of Steel Construction.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 29 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
M.S. Transportation
Engineering/Operations
Research, University of
Delaware
M.Eng Transportation
Engineering, University of
Tokyo
B.Tech (hons) Civil, Indian
Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, West Bengal
Skills
ITS System Review &
Needs Assessment
Traffic Operations
Joy Bhattacharya, PE
Innovative Transportation Planning and ITS Expert
Experience Summary
Joy is AMG’s Vice President of Innovative Transportation Solutions. Joy has in‐depth experience in the development, design and
implementation of various engineering strategies in major metropolitan areas, including Adaptive/Responsive Traffic Signal Systems and Transit Priority Systems; Incident Management Plans; design of automated Electronic Toll Collection systems; preparation of PS&E for field implementation of CCTV, Changeable Message Signs, Highway Advisory Radio, Ramp Metering and ATMS systems; and freeway and arterial operations using micro‐simulation. Local projects to his credit include the GoMentum Station V2X Signal Lab, CAV Program, SAV FM/LM pilot program at San Ramon, Mountain House ATMS, City of Hayward Adaptive Signal Systems, Webster Street SMART Corridor System, SR‐4 and I‐80 Integrated Corridor Management, and the Santa Clara VTA Capitol Corridor Transportation Study. Joy has been involved with traffic signal systems for over 25 years on design, operations, maintenance, and inspection of signal systems and implementation of backend Traffic Management Centers.

Joy spearheaded the effort of planning and building the V2X traffic signal lab at GoMentum Station with the capability of testing applications related to DSRC and CV2X communication. Joy is currently managing the ATSPM grants for the Cities of Hayward, Dublin, San Rafael, Walnut Creek and Concord, which includes implementation of DSRC based Conditional Transit Priorities along corridor and getting high resolution data from the traffic signal system.

Traffic Management
Centers
Knowledge of Existing &
Emerging Transportation
Technologies
Innovative Congestion
Management Strategies
Stakeholder Coordination
Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of Concord
V2X Signal Lab, GoMentum Station, Project Manager
Joy led the design and implementation effort of a state‐of‐the‐art CAV V2X Signal Lab at GoMentum Station, that will be dedicated to research, training, and testing of CAV hardware and software technologies. Traffic engineers in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area will have access to traffic signal cabinets, multiple traffic signal controllers, video detection, DSRC/5G communication, and other traffic signal related equipment, to test the connectivity and safe crossing of CAVs equipped with On‐Board Units (OBUs) and traffic signal controllers equipped with DSRC/5G technology. The significance of this effort is that City traffic engineers will no longer need to use their own maintenance shop and scarce resources for testing AV connectivity for safety. The unique environment of the VzX Signal Lab City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 30 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joy Bhattacharya, PE
Innovative
Transportation
Planning and ITS
Expert
will expose traffic engineers and technicians to the complexities of signal deployment and prepare us for future CAV operations, including setup and maintenance of traffic signal controllers, conflict monitors, load switches, detection and DSRC/5G based communication systems on traffic signal cabinets. The lab offers the opportunity for hands‐on experience working with futuristic traffic signals and associated technologies, testing various CAV and DSRC functional services, including collision avoidance, ATSPM, Emergency Vehicle Preemption, Vulnerable User Services, V2V, V2I, V2P, and V2C communications.

Additionally, the lab is poised to educate and train signal technicians and traffic engineers in both the public and private sectors.

Alameda and Contra Costa County
I‐80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Project Manager AMG staff were responsible for evaluating the existing system and providing solution by designing, developing, and implementing communication between the field elements and the TMC and between the City TMC and Regional TMC. Staff worked closely with 11 cities and 2 transit agencies to implement the system. AMG staff is responsible for the successful implementation and operation of all the advanced strategies implemented as part of the project. The project included the implementation and integration of traffic and transit operations strategies including adaptive ramp metering, ramp metering priority for transit, traffic operations systems, active traffic management, and incident management along a 19.5‐mile section of I‐80 between the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza and the Carquinez Bridge. In addition to the freeway improvements, the project consists of local arterial and transit improvements along San Pablo Avenue, including signal
synchronization, transit signal priority and flush plan for incidents.

Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS)
Design for Route 238 Improvements, Project Manager
Joy managed the evaluation and design of an Advanced Traffic Management System with adaptive coordination capabilities. The design plans were completed on a fast‐track schedule, and the roadway improvements and signal modifications are now under construction. ITS services for the project included: Developing the ATMS functional requirements: Preparing draft and Final Concept of Operations reports: Analyzing traffic detection and communications requirements and Evaluating adaptive control traffic signal systems and selecting the system that most effectively meets the City’s signal system requirements. In addition to preparing traffic signal, pavement delineation and signing plans, Joy also designed the detection and fiber optic/copper signal interconnect at 32 intersections.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 31 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joy Bhattacharya, PE
Innovative
Transportation
Planning and ITS
Expert
Caltrans District 6
Fresno 180 Braided Ramp Design/Fresno, Project Manager‐ITS The overall purpose of the project was to improve traffic operations, reduce congestion, and enhance traffic safety within the freeway‐to‐ freeway interchanges between SR 180, SR41 and SR 168.  Joy was the PM for the traffic/ITS work needed for the project. ITS scope of work included the design of and plans for the overhead and roadway signage, the pavement delineation, and the electrical systems on the project.

Alameda County
Webster Street SMART Corridor Project, Project Manager
Joy was as the Project Manager for the Webster Street SMART Corridor Project. The project the developed a TSP system to reduce travel time along five AC Transit lines; designed traffic signal coordination systems along Webster Street and Constitution Way/Lincoln Avenue; designed a new traffic signal at Webster/Pacific Avenues and signal modifications at five intersections; designed and implemented an Advance (VDS); designed and implemented a CCTV system; and implemented an ATIS.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 32 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
MS, Civil Engineering,
University of Idaho
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of Idaho
Cristiano Melo, PE, GE
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Experience Summary
Mr. Melo will serve as the primary point of contact, project manager, and lead geotechnical engineer for BSK’s services for this contract. He is a licensed Civil and Geotechnical Engineer in the State of California with over 20 years of experience throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley, supporting projects from design of shallow and deep foundations to retaining walls, geotechnical peer reviews, pavement rehabilitation studies, earthwork, hillside grading, site drainage, subgrade stabilization, slope stability analysis, ground improvement, and trenchless excavation. His project support focuses on geotechnical investigations, materials testing, and geotechnical peer review for numerous public works/capital improvements projects, including sewer/water/stormwater pipeline, wastewater treatment plant, pumping station, water tank, public building, parks, and roadway projects designed to Caltrans Standards.

Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of Brentwood
Shea Homes & Shea Trilogy Subdivisions, Independent Geotechnical Peer Review
Mr. Melo performed a peer review of the soil/bedrock expansion mitigation for two subdivisions as part of BSK’s on‐call geotechnical on‐call contract with the City. The objective of the peer review was to provide an independent assessment of the mitigation measures recommended by the Geotechnical Engineers‐of‐Record for the two subdivisions.

City of Dublin
Fallon Sports Phase 3 Improvements, Lead Geotechnical Engineer Mr. Melo is the lead geotechnical engineer for new facilities and other improvements at Fallon Sports Park and additional task orders under BSK’s on‐call agreement with the City. The project included two additional little league fields, cricket field, athletic field lights, sand volleyball courts, play area, and concrete flatwork/terrace seating.

City of Berkeley
1322 Glendale Avenue Retaining Wall, Project Manager and Lead Geotechnical Engineer
An existing retaining wall, approximately 150 feet long and up to about 7 feet high, along the west side of southbound Glendale Avenue City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 33 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
near 1322 Glendale Avenue is either failing or allowing subgrade soil Cristiano Melo, PE,
GE
Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer
underneath to erode. The erosion also caused settlement of the sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and asphalt pavement located behind the retaining wall. BSK performed a site reconnaissance, reviewed existing data, conducted a geotechnical investigation, and provided geotechnical recommendations for repairs. Construction for the new wall replacement started during the fall of 2021 and is due to be completed by the spring of 2022. The City retained BSK during construction to provide limited geotechnical observation services. Mr.

Melo was the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer.

City of Berkeley
San Pablo Avenue Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation, Project Manager & Lead Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo served as the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer. The project involved the rehabilitation of existing 6‐ to 10‐ inch vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer main segments located within the Caltrans right‐of‐way. Borings were strategically located outside the Caltrans right‐of‐way.

Contra Costa County Public Works
Happy Valley Road Embankment Repair, Project Manager & Lead Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo was the lead geotechnical engineer and Project Manager for the geotechnical investigation for this project which was a task order to BSK’s on‐call agreement with the County. A landslide removed the asphalt‐paved shoulder and a portion of the northbound lane on Happy Valley Road adjacent to an intermittent creek located approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the intersection with Bear Creek Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Slope stability analyses were performed for various repair options.

Casa Montego Senior Housing
Satellite Housing/Casa Montego II, Project Manager & Lead Engineer Mr. Melo served as Project Manager and lead engineer for the geotechnical investigation and earthwork construction observation and testing for 2 interconnected 2‐story buildings with a total footprint area of approximately 13,000 square feet. Due to space constraints and the proximity of an existing nearby senior housing building, the cut slope to the south of the site was retained by a soldier pile wall with tiebacks and a three‐tiered tieback wall. Both walls had shotcrete facing.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 34 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Cristiano Melo, PE,
GE
Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer
City of Oakley
Oakley Recreation Center, Project Manager & Lead Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo was the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer for the geotechnical investigation and construction monitoring services for a new recreation center. The project included two approximately 10,000‐square foot buildings, an amphitheater, an athletic field with natural turf, asphalt concrete paved parking and driveways, underground utilities, landscaping, and bioswales/infiltration basins.

City of Tracy
Holly Drive and Arbor Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation, Independent Geotechnical Peer Review
Mr. Melo performed a peer review of the geotechnical investigation and pavement rehabilitation measures, particularly focused on full depth reclamation as part of BSK’s on‐call geotechnical on‐call contract with the City. The objective of the peer review was to provide an independent assessment of the soil/bedrock expansion mitigation measures recommended by the Geotechnical Engineers‐of‐Record for the two subdivisions.

City of Vallejo
New Police Headquarters, Project Manager and Lead Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo serves as the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer for the geotechnical investigation. An existing 15‐year‐old 2‐ story commercial building with a footprint area of approximately 30,000 square feet is being seismically retrofit to a Risk Category IV, Essential Services Building. Site challenges include shallow groundwater and long‐term settlement associated with Bay Mud. To address these challenges, the new building additions will be supported on deep foundations consisting of drilled piers and raising site grade via placement of new fill will be kept to a minimum.

Hayward Area Recreation and Park District
Via Toledo Park, Project Manager and Lead Geotechnical Engineer Mr. Melo was the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer for the investigation of a new neighborhood park with a footprint area of approximately 2 acres. The project includes a half‐court basketball court, play areas, fitness equipment, picnic areas, plaza, shade structure, and decomposed granite pathway. He is also managing BSK’s support during construction.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 35 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Cristiano Melo, PE,
GE
Principal
Geotechnical
Engineer
Stanislaus County
Crows Landing Road Improvements, Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo served as the geotechnical engineer for the pavement rehabilitation and widening of approximately 1,500 feet of Crows Landing Road. Rehabilitation measures being considered include asphalt rubber chip seal interlayer and asphalt concrete overlay, asphalt concrete overlay, and full‐depth reclamation.

City of Suisun City
McCoy Creek Trail Phase II, Project Manager and Lead Geotechnical Engineer
Mr. Melo served as the Project Manager and lead geotechnical engineer for the geotechnical investigation extending an existing 10‐ foot‐wide concrete pathway along the western bank of McCoy Creek from Pintail Drive north to Laurel Creek, where a single‐span, 175‐foot long, prefabricated pedestrian/bicycle bridge will be installed, connecting the north and south banks of Laurel Creek. Other improvements will include shade structures, wayfinding signs, minor landscaping, lighting, and bioretention areas. The total length of the trail will be approximately ¾‐mile in length.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 36 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
MS, Civil Engineering,
University of California,
Berkley
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of Washington
Carrie Foulk, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer/Geotechnical Group
Manager
Experience Summary
Ms. Foulk has over 20 years of geotechnical engineering experience providing geotechnical engineering consulting for public and private sector clients, including local area government agencies, school districts, wastewater districts, and commercial developers. Her expertise covers many levels of project responsibility including scoping, conducting field and laboratory investigations, performing engineering analyses, preparing reports, performing peer reviews, and coordinating and providing construction services.

Skills
Civil Engineer, California,
No. 62240, 2001
Geotechnical Engineer,
California, No. 3016, 2013
Select Relevant Project Experience:

Alameda County
Crow Canyon Road Edge Repairs, Independent Geotechnical Peer Review
Ms. Foulk provided a peer review of geotechnical report as part of BSK’s geotechnical on‐call contract with the County for four locations along the outboard edge of the roadway where slope instabilities were identified. Services were limited to providing an independent assessment of the project report
City of Livermore
On‐Call Geotechnical and Materials Testing, Project Manager Ms. Foulk is the Project Manager of the On‐Call Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing and Inspection contract with the City. The contract consists of providing materials testing and inspection, geotechnical engineering investigations, and environmental consultation. Projects have included over 60 task orders to‐date to include materials testing for roadway and civil infrastructure projects, as well as a geotechnical investigation and infiltration testing for a hydromodification basin project and geotechnical engineer‐of‐record services for their $8.1 million, 6,750 sf Civic Center Meeting Hall project where BSK assumed the geotechnical engineer‐of‐record role and supported the project during construction with materials testing and special inspections to include structural steel, reinforced concrete, and miscellaneous various specialty evaluation of construction materials requested by the City.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 37 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Carrie Foulk, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical
Engineer/
Geotechnical Group
Engineer
City of Pleasanton
On‐Call Geotechnical & Materials Testing Services, Project Manager Ms. Foulk is the Project Manager of the On‐Call Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing and Inspection Contract with the City of Pleasanton of which BSK has held for the past 15+ years. The contract consists of providing materials testing and inspection, geotechnical engineering investigations, and geotechnical peer reviews.

West Las Positas Boulevard Failure Analysis Investigation W. Las Positas Boulevard from Santa Rita Road to Interstate 680, Project Manager
The roadway has experienced settlement and cracking over many years and has exhibited accelerated settlement over the last 10 years.

The settlement is not limited to the roadway but is widespread in this area, affecting homes and other structures. This part of Pleasanton is underlain by Holocene flood basin deposits. Portions of the roadway and surroundings was former marsh areas. BSK is investigating the subsurface conditions along the length of roadway by drilling and sampling various soil borings. She has been involved with 21 task orders to‐date to include: Fire Training Tower – Project included mapping of cracking and fire‐related damage to a seven‐level concrete training facility structure. Livermore‐Pleasanton Fire Department Fire Station #3 – Construction observation and testing of $7.5 million, 8,800‐square‐foot two‐story fire station. Bernal Community Park Phase I and II – Lead geotechnical engineer and Project Manager for the construction phase of the $16 million, 60‐acre Bernal Community Park. Independent Geotechnical Peer Review, Kiewit Property – Independent geotechnical engineering assessment of project specific documents for a 181 single‐family residential development and associated improvements. Val Vista Park Restroom – Forensic investigation into significant masonry wall cracking, including a geotechnical investigation, laboratory testing and conclusions on cause of cracking and settlement.

Alameda County
Fault Rupture Hazard Evaluation, Independent Geotechnical Peer Review
Ms. Foulk conducted a peer review of the project report for a new residential redevelopment for Alameda County as part of BSK’s geotechnical on‐call contract with the County. The objective of the review was limited to providing an independent assessment of the report based on the Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and California Geological Survey Note 49.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 38 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Carrie Foulk, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical
Engineer/
Geotechnical Group
Manager
City of Fremont
New Band Pavilion at Central Park, Lead Engineer
Ms. Foulk served as the lead engineer during the geotechnical investigation the new band pavilion at Central Park in Fremont. The project consisted of the complete demolition and reconstruction of the former band pavilion and ancillary improvements.

City of Brentwood
Public Works Administration Building, Senior Geotechnical Engineer Ms. Foulk performed Geotechnical Senior Review for the preliminary geotechnical investigation for a new administration building. The project consists of an approximately 14,000 square‐foot, 1‐story, L‐ shaped building with a slab‐on‐grade floor. The new building extends over an area currently occupied by a 1‐story, approximately 2,000 square foot building, paved paving and driveways, concrete flatwork, and concrete walls.

City of Pleasanton
Yolanda Court Storm Drain Outfall Repair, Geotechnical Peer Review Ms. Foulk performed geotechnical peer review for the soils investigation for this emergency‐type erosion repair project. A slope containing a storm drain outfall failed/eroded during the 2016‐2017 rainy season, which resulted in an approximately 20‐foot‐high scarp along with disconnection and damage of the existing 36‐inch corrugated metal pipe.

Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Channel Widening, Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Ms. Foulk conducted a geotechnical investigation and
recommendations for new sheet pile walls for the purpose of widening an existing flood control channel. This work was conducted under BSK’s current geotechnical on‐call contract with the County. The subsurface conditions include several layers of liquefiable soils.

Recommendations included active pressures and passive resistance based on liquefied soil, seismic increment for the wall, and a site‐ specific ground motion hazard analysis.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 39 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
BS, Civil Engineering,
California Polytechnic
State University, San Luis
Obispo, CA
Skills
Engineer‐in‐Training
(E.I.T.), No. 128476, CA
Nuclear Density Gauge
Michael Kibbey
Materials Testing Task Manager
Experience Summary
Mr. Kibbey has nearly 14 years of experience in materials testing and special inspection services involving pavement, masonry, pre‐cast concrete, earthwork, foundations, reinforcing steel, concrete, load testing of post‐installed anchors/dowels, structural steel, and welding, to name a few. His portfolio of projects includes experience with Caltrans, roadways/highways, bridges, rail, soil nail, tie‐back, and gravity walls, mass grading, deep and shallow foundations, hot mix asphalt pavements, and subsurface exploration. His responsibilities have included field activity oversight, planning and staffing, attendance at pre‐bid and pre‐construction meetings, owner and stakeholder reporting, analysis and communication, providing quality control leadership, including developing quality assurance protocols for laboratory testing, and ensuring contractor’s quality control programs are compliant with regulations and meet Agency and owner requirements.

Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of San Ramon
On‐Call Materials Testing and Construction Inspection Consulting Services, Project Manager
Mr. Kibbey serves as a Project Manager providing on‐call materials testing and construction inspection consulting services for the City of San Ramon through various task orders. Services include grading, paving, minor concrete work, installation and backfill of utilities, welding inspection, and full‐depth reclamation (FDR). All work is performed in accordance with Caltrans project special provision requirements and the City’s Quality Assurance Program (QAP).

City of San Ramon
Alcosta Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation, Project Manager This $3.5 million included the pavement rehabilitation along Alcosta Boulevard that included full‐depth reclamation (FDR) to stabilize existing subgrade with cement, overlay and mill and fill treatments with hot‐mix‐asphalt (HMA), HMA base failure repairs, utility adjustments, adjusting of survey monuments and covers, replacing signal detector loops, and pavement striping and markers. BSK provided materials testing services that included observation of base failure repairs, Quality Assurance (QA) oversight and testing during FDR cement treatment, HMA sampling and testing, and laboratory testing of FDR and HMA materials.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 40 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Michael Kibbey
Materials Testing
Task Manager
City of San Ramon
Pavement Management 2021 Project, Project Manager
BSK provided materials testing services on the City of San Ramon’s Pavement Management 2021 Project that included slurry seal treatment (90,408 SY), microsurfacing (180,710 SY), and rubber chip seal (121,545 SY) at various locations throughout the city as part of their annual maintenance program. BSK provided quality assurance observation and materials testing services that included sampling and testing of aggregates and emulsions through the duration of the project. BSK’s inspectors observed the contractor was performing operations per project specifications and measured the rate of placement of slurry seal/microsurfacing and chip seal. Laboratory testing included sieve analysis, sand equivalent, durability index, LA rattler, percent crushed particles, viscosity, particle charge, residue by evaporation, cone penetration, resilience, and softening point.

City of San Ramon
On‐Call Pothole and Miscellaneous Pavement Repairs, Project Manager
BSK provided materials testing and compaction testing services during this on‐call pothole repair project along Stoney Creek Drive in San Ramon. BSK observed and tested compaction for the base failure repairs using hot‐mix‐asphalt. Laboratory testing included Hveem maximum density, HMA oil content, and proctor compaction curves.

City of Richmond
Castro Ranch Road Rehabilitation Project, Project Manager Mr. Kibbey served as Project Manager providing Quality Assurance (QA) testing services as part of the Construction Management team for this pavement rehabilitation project of Castro Ranch Road from Olinda Road to the City Limit. Services include observation, sampling, and field density testing during subgrade preparation and placement of aggregate base, cold in‐place recycling of asphalt pavement, hot mix asphalt (HMA), as well as special inspection and testing services during reinforced concrete construction. All work was performed in accordance with Caltrans and project special provision requirements.

Contra Costa Transportation Authority
State Route 4 Balfour Road Interchange Reconstruction and Bridges, Project Manager and Structure Materials Representative (SMR) Mr. Kibbey served as Project Manager and Structure Materials Representative (SMR) on the Balfour Road and State Route 4 Interchange project in Brentwood. The project scope included City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 41 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Michael Kibbey
Materials Testing
Task Manager
lowering Balfour Road raising SR 4 to a primary precast (PC) pre‐ stressed (PS) concrete overpass bridge. Two other bridges were constructed over Deer Creek, PC/PS and Cast‐in‐place (CIP).  He oversaw the coordination of source inspections, working directly with the Structure Representative and with the Caltrans oversight team on the Balfour segment as well as helped develop the Source Inspection Quality Management Plan (SIQMP) that was prepared specifically for the project.

City of San Mateo
Construction Management (CM) On‐Call Materials Testing Services, Project Manager
Mr. Kibbey is serving as Project Manager to provide materials testing services as part of the City of San Mateo CM On‐Call. Services include performing compaction testing and observation of subgrade materials, full‐depth reclamation (FDR) testing, aggregate base, and hot‐mix‐ asphalt (HMA) paving, HMA batch plant sampling, as well as structural concrete sampling. Task orders to‐date include North San Mateo Drive Sustainable Streets, Citywide Street Rehabilitation Phase I, San Mateo Streets Reconstruction Project II.

Stanislaus County
Crows Landing Road Bridge Replacement, Project Manager
The proposed 5‐span structure will be a cast‐in‐place concrete box girder bridge and constructed in two‐stages to maintain two lanes of travel during construction. Mr. Kibbey is currently serving as Project Manager providing Quality Assurance (QA) testing services as part of the Construction Management team for the Crows Landing Road Bridge Replacement project over the San Joaquin River located near the unincorporated town of Crows Landing. The new bridge structure will have two 12‐foot travel lanes with 4‐foot shoulders, as well as a 12‐foot center median lane to accommodate safe turning movements.

BSK’s services include observation, sampling, and field density testing of native subgrade, embankment/structural backfill, and aggregate base, concrete sampling and testing, hot mix asphalt (HMA) sampling and testing, as well as to assist with source inspection coordination and testing. All work is being performed in accordance with Caltrans and project special provision requirements.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 42 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Mario Camorongan, PE, CFM, QSD
Senior Project Manager
Experience Summary
Mr. Camorongan is a seasoned civil engineer with over 40 years of experience in municipal engineering design. Prior to joining CSG, he served as Senior Civil Engineer/CIP Manager for the City of Concord.

Education/Training
Bachelor of Science, Civil
Engineering
University of Pangasinan
Philippines
Professional Civil Engineer
State of California | 32617
Professional Civil Engineer
State of Washington |
22052
Professional Civil Engineer
State of Oregon | 14657
Professional Civil Engineer
Philippines | 16996
Certified Floodplain
Manager, ASFPM
US‐08‐03613
Certified QSD/QSP
20442
Affiliations
Filipino‐American Society
of Architects and
Engineers (FASAE)
Past President 2004‐2005
Past Chairman of the
Board
Select Relevant Project Experience:

Mountain House Community Services District
Development Project Manager/Resident Engineer
Mr. Camorongan is providing project management and review of submittals. He provides project oversight as a Resident Engineer in support of the inspector on a number of parks and landscape projects such as A3 Mini Park, A4/A5 Mini Park, Neighborhood (NH) A, B2/B3, B4/B5 In‐Tract Landscaping projects.

City of Concord
Capital Improvement Program, Senior Civil Engineer/CIP Manager Mr. Camorongan worked in incremental responsibilities from a Public Works Engineer III to a Senior Civil Engineer/CIP Manager for the City of Concord. As a Senior Civil Engineer, Mr. Camorongan was responsible for managing the Capital Improvement Program of the Engineering Division and the delivery of capital projects through the preparation of plans and specifications and provided construction management. He prepared and reviewed project descriptions, outlined the scope of projects, design criteria, necessary information, special studies, and necessary scheduling and coordination, reviewed the work of engineering consultants for compliance with contracts, as well as responded to questions and complaints from contractors and the general public. Additionally, Mr. Camorongan was primarily responsible for the development of the City’s capital project budget and a designated Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to Caltrans, MTC, and CCTA.

City of Pleasant Hill
Luk and Associates, Project Manager
As Project Manager, Mr. Camorongan supervised staff assigned to each project. He prepared construction specifications and bid proposals for various projects and prepared grading and improvement plans for various schools, storage facilities, single family and multi‐ family subdivisions, fire department stations, animal shelters, juvenile justice facilities, shopping centers, and other commercial developments using AutoCad.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 43 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Mario Camorongan,

PE, CFM, QSD
Senior Project
Manager
Affiliations (continued)
Member Teaching Staff
(EIT Review)
American Public Works
Association (APWA)
City of Martinez
Engineering Collaborative, Vice President
Mr. Camorongan was responsible for the formulation and
administration of company policies and development of long‐range goals and objectives. He developed marketing plans and interacted with clients, developed strategies for personal and professional growth of employees, and provided plan checking of grading and improvement plans, parcel and final maps, and related documents for various cities.

City of Walnut Creek
Stedman and Associates, Engineering Supervisor
Mr. Camorongan planned, developed, coordinated, and directed large engineering projects, as well as small projects with many complex features. He developed and evaluated plans and criteria for the variety of projects and activities carried out by subordinates. Mr. Camorongan also performed structural calculations, hydrology and hydraulic calculations, engineer’s cost estimates, and earthwork quantities.

City of Concord
Santina and Thompson, Project Engineer
As a Project Engineer, Mr. Camorongan performed structural analysis on concrete retaining walls, sound walls, slope protection structures, and bridge widening projects. He designed grading, utility, and improvement plans for various subdivisions, included designed various capital improvement projects for various types of construction specifications for the City of Dublin.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 44 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering
California Polytechnic
State University
Lawrence Lau, PE, PLS, QSD/P
CIP Manager
Experience Summary
Mr. Lau has over 27 years of civil engineering design and project management experience. He possesses a strong technical background in the master planning, design, and construction of Caltrans and local roadways, complete streets, roundabouts, parking lots, drainage and utility improvements for public agencies. He is also experienced in site layout, grading, drainage, and backbone infrastructure improvements for low, medium, and high density residential and mixed‐use developments.

Professional Civil Engineer
State of California |
C57397
Professional Land
Surveyor
State of California | L7934
Qualified Stormwater
Designer/Practitioner |
23449
Affiliations
APWA
American Council of
Engineering Companies
East Bay Chapter
Past President (2013‐
2014)
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of East Palo Alto
Addison Ave. Safe Routes to Schools and Green Street Improvements, Project Manager
Mr. Lau served as the Project Manager for enhancements to pedestrian and bicyclist accessibility and safety within a residential area by installing new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and sustainable green street features. Mr. Lau led a community outreach meeting at the beginning of design stage to listen to the community and stakeholder’s concerns.

Town of Colma
Mission Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Project, Project Manager
Mr. Lau served as the Project Manager for the design of bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the Town of Colma. The project involved the planning, design and implementation of a number of safety related improvements for the pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles along Mission Road between El Camino Real and Lawndale Boulevard.

The anticipated improvements include addition of new sidewalk to provide continuous safe and accessible pedestrian route, extension of Class II bicycle lanes on northbound direction, construction of bulbouts and high visibility crosswalks with pedestrian flashing beacons, installation of energy efficient street lights, relocation and reconstruction of the existing curb, gutter, sidewalk and non‐ADA compliant ramps and driveway approaches, and construction of landscape planters for drainage and stormwater treatment purposes City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 45 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Lawrence Lau, PE,

PLS, QDS/P
CIP Manager
City of Pleasanton
Bernal Ave. and Nevada Street Intersection Project, Project Manager Mr. Lau managed the design of a protected intersection, an innovative approach to expand both the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Nevada Street with a 30 feet radius and ADA‐compliant curb ramps. The design aspects of the project included ADA‐compliant curb ramps, driveway approach, sidewalk, curb & gutter, a drainage inlet, adjustment to utility covers, roadway resurfacing, and modification to an existing drainage inlet.

City of Albany
Marin Ave. Pavement & Curb Rehabilitation Project, Project Manager Mr. Lau managed the review, evaluation, recommendation, and design of pavement rehabilitation treatment alternatives along Marin Avenue and other eleven collector and local roads for the City. The project scope included assessment of existing site conditions, selection of pavement treatment types, repair of base failures, crack sealing, pavement patch and leveling, preservation of existing survey monuments, reconstruction of curb ramps to meet ADA requirements, repair of failed curb, gutter and sidewalk, reinstallation of new bike lanes and traffic signal detector loops, pavement markings and striping, and adjustment of existing utilities to pavement finished grade. Mr. Lau also attended a workshop to present the findings from the field investigations and establish guiding principles for curb ramp design, pavement treatments and modifications to existing striping and signage.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 46 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
Bachelor of Science,
Industrial Technology
Construction Option with
Architectural Emphasis
California State University
Professional Civil Engineer
State of California |
C57601
David Rubcic, PE, PLS
City Surveyor
Experience Summary
Mr. Rubcic is a professional engineer with over 36 years of experience in all phases of municipal engineering including capital improvement projects, subdivision improvements, land developments, inspection, and master planning. Prior to joining CSG, Mr. Rubcic served the City of Hollister for 22 years, starting as an Assistant Engineer and ending his services as Interim City Engineer. As part of his role with the City of Hollister, Mr. Rubcic met with the public in workshops and other meetings including one‐on‐one discussions for negotiations of right‐of‐ way acquisition, project meetings, and general community outreach.

For CSG, Mr. Rubcic provided map review for developments for the Town of Windsor, Mountain View, Monte Sereno, San Leandro, and many other agencies in the area. He also performs development review for the City of Rohnert Park as part of an on‐call development and map review contract.

Professional Land
Surveyor
State of California | L7994
Select Relevant Project Experience:

City of Marina
Development and Map Review, Project Manager
Mr. Rubcic serves as CSG’s Project Manager overseeing the review of multiple developments within the City. Notable projects include but are not limited to: Sea Haven/Marina Heights Development‐ 240‐acre site will include over 1,000 new townhouse and single‐family residential units, and will include 35 acres of parks, greenbelts, and open space. The Dunes Residential Development‐ multiple phased of development. His responsibilities have included the review of Final Maps and the associated improvement plans for each phase. He has also performed several Tentative Map conformance reviews and a Tentative Map amendment review. Marina Station‐ 246.2 Acres consisting of 1360 residential units, commercial, industrial, office, parks, trails. He has already preformed a Tentative Map Conformance Review and participates in project meetings with the developer.

City of Gilroy
Project Manager, City Surveyor
Mr. Rubcic currently serves as the CSG Project Manager and the City Surveyor where he has reviewed several Lot Line Adjustments, easements, certificate of compliance proposals and a Project Review for the compliance with existing maps on difficult properties involving a Court Judgment.  He is currently reviewing a 67 Lot residential subdivision as part of the Glen Loma master planned Development.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 47 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Suzanne Avilla, AICP
Principal Planner
Experience Summary
Ms. Avila is a planning professional with over 30 years of experience in municipal planning.

Experience
30 years
Education/Training
Bachelor of Arts,
Environmental Studies
California State University,
East Bay | Hayward, CA
Graduate Coursework
Environmental
Studies/Urban Planning
San Jose State University |
San Jose, CA
Affiliations
American Institute of
Certified Planners
Select Relevant Project Experience:

Town of Los Altos Hills
CSG Contract Planner
Ms. Avila provided project management services to the Town of Los Altos Hills on Pathway Fee Nexus Study, Pathway Map update and Green Infrastructure Plan.

Town of Colma
CSG Contract Planner
Ms. Avila provides planning manager staff augmentation for current and long‐range planning initiatives.

Town of Portola Valley
CSG Contract Planner
Ms. Avila is currently providing housing policy and current planning assistance to the Town.

Town of Altos Hills
Planning Director
As Planning Director, Ms. Avila oversaw and managed Planning and Building operations and code enforcement; supervised staff and consultants and prepared performance reviews; reviewed and rendered decisions on projects at Site Development and Fast Track hearings; prepared reports and presentations and attended all Planning Commission and City Council meetings. She also met with residents and design professionals to facilitate application processing and to resolve issues, interfaced with volunteer committee members, prepared ordinance and General Plan element updates, reviewed and processed annexations and development applications, and conducted building permit plan checks.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 48 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Suzanne Avila, AICP
Principal Planner
Town of Los Gatos
Senior Planner
Ms. Avila performed current planning functions as the project planner for complex planning applications including planned developments, architecture and site, subdivisions and use permits; hillside development; and historic preservation (CLG Coordinator and staff liaison). She also processed annexations, performed construction management and building plan check, prepared staff reports, and held site analysis meetings with design professionals and residents.

Her advance planning responsibilities included General Plan and Housing Element updates, Tree Protection Ordinance updates, creation and adoption of Commercial Design Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, establishment of architectural and geotechnical peer review processes, preparation of consultant RFPs and contracts, managing Environmental, Arborist and Architectural consultants, consultant selection, and community workshops for the North 40 Specific Plan.

City of Palo Alto
Contract Planner
For the City of Palo Alto, Ms. Avila was responsible for commercial and industrial projects requiring approval by Architectural Review Board, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission; environmental review; site visits and field work; building permit plan check; and pre‐ application meetings with design professionals and business owners.

City of Sunnyvale
Contract Planner
For the City of Sunnyvale, Ms. Avila worked at the One‐Stop Permit counter as part of the express plan check team; provided zoning information; reviewed business license and home occupation applications; processed staff level planning and design review applications; updated brochures and informational handouts; served as project planner for commercial and industrial projects; performed environmental review; and worked on annexation of County pockets.

Town of Altos Hills, Associate Planner
Ms. Avila performed site analysis meetings with residents and design professionals; reviewed development, subdivision, variance, conditional development permit and conditional use permit applications; prepared staff reports to Planning Commission and City Council; and attended Site Development, Planning Commission and City Council meetings.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 49 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
California State University
Northridge, Master’s in
Public Administration
(Public Sector
Management)
San Diego State
University, Business
Administration (Finance)
Affiliations
California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
(CSMFO)
Municipal Management
Association of Southern
California (MMASC)
Brian M. Brown, MPA
Principal
Experience Summary
Mr. Brown has over 15 years of experience in the formation and administration of Special Financing Districts in the state of California.

Prior to joining Francisco & Associates, Brian was a Director of Public Finance at Harris & Associates and an Associate Director at NBS where he worked with public agencies throughout the State of California in addressing their revenue needs.  Brian has successfully developed financial and managerial solutions to help municipalities better manage their special financing districts.  He has formed and administered special financing districts formed under a variety of California statutes, including, but not limited to the Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Improvement Act of 1913, Municipal Bond Act of 1915, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, and Benefit Assessment District Act of 1982. Mr. Brown is responsible for performing various tasks pertaining to all aspects of the formation and administration of Special Financing Districts.  These duties include creating and implementing financing strategies, developing tax and assessment methodologies, audits, the creation and development of budgets, district and project fund closeouts, initial bond disclosure analysis, annual administration services, continuing disclosure services, statutory compliance, preparation of reports, data manipulation, council presentations, community outreach, and management of the databases associated with the special financing districts.

Committee on
Assessments, Special
Taxes, & Other Financing
Facilities (CASTOFF)
Select Relevant Project Experience:

Maintenance Assessment Districts
 City of Brentwood, CA, Landscape and Lighting Districts (60+ separate districts)
 City of Brentwood, CA, Citywide Park Assessment District  Carmel Valley Recreation & Park District, CA, Park Maintenance Assessment District
 City of Chula Vista, CA*, Open Space Districts (30+ separate districts and zones)
 City of Campbell, CA, Lighting and Landscaping District LLA‐1  City of Concord, CA, Citywide Street Lighting District  City of Concord, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. 3, Pine Hollow, and Downtown
 Cordova Recreation & Park District, Landscape and Lighting/Park  City of Dublin, CA, Street Light/Landscape and Lighting Districts City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 50 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Brian Brown, MPA
Principal
 City of Elk Grove, CA*, Street/Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (2 districts)
 City of Lincoln, CA*, Benefit Assessment District No. 1  City of Livermore, CA, Landscape and Lighting Districts (90 + separate districts)
 City of Maywood, CA, Street Lighting Assessment District  City of National City*, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. 1 (Mile of Cars)
 City of Oakland, CA, Citywide Landscape and Lighting District  City of Oxnard, CA*, SFD Audits (50+ districts)
 City of Rancho Cordova, CA, Landscape & Lighting/Transit Districts (4 districts)
 City of Solvang, CA, Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District No. 2004‐1
 Southgate Recreation & Park District, Landscape and Lighting Districts (multiple districts and zones)
Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
 Association of Bay Area Governments*, Windemere CFD No. 2004‐ 2  City of Brentwood, CA, CFD No. 2, 3, 4 & 5
 City of Campbell, CA, Community Facilities District No. 2  City of Chula Vista, CA*, Community Facilities Districts (25+ separate districts)
 City of Clayton*, CA, CFD No. 1990‐1, 1990‐2, 2006‐1, and 2007‐1  Cordova Recreation & Park District, Community Facilities Districts (5 districts)
 Contra Costa County, CA, Administration of CFDs
 City of Elk Grove, CA*, CFD No. 2002‐1, 2003‐1, 2003‐2, 2005‐1, and 2006‐1
 City of Laguna Beach, CA*, Utility Undergrounding CFD Study  City of Lincoln, CA*, Community Facilities District No. 1998‐1 (Lincoln Airpark)
 City of Livermore, CA, Administration and Formation of CFDs  City of Napa, CA, Community Facilities District No. 2017‐1  City of Oakland, CA, Wood Street and Gateway Industrial CFDs  City of Rancho Cordova, CA*, Administration and Formation of CFDs
 City of San Ramon, CA, CFD No. 2014‐1
 Southgate Recreation & Park District, Community Facilities District Districts (2 CFDs)
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 51 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Brian Brown, MPA
Principal
Special Tax Districts
 City of Dublin, CA, Emergency Medical Services Special Tax  City of Lincoln, CA*, Community Facilities District No. 1998‐1  City of Oakland, CA, Special Taxes (7 special taxes)
 City of Rancho Cordova, CA, Police Services Special Tax 1913/1915 Act Assessment Districts
 Association of Bay Area Governments*, Windemere Ranch Assessment District
 City of Anderson, CA, Riverside Avenue East Assessment District  City of Antioch, CA*, Assessment Districts (4 districts)  City of Brentwood, CA, Assessment Districts (10 separate districts)  City of Carlsbad, CA*, Assessment Districts (multiple districts)  City of Chula Vista, CA*, Assessment Districts (5+ separate districts)
 City of Hercules, CA*, Assessment District No. 2005‐1 (John Muir) and (Alfred Nobel)
 City of Lincoln, CA*, Twelve Bridges Assessment District No. 1995‐ 1 (Series 1999‐1 and 2001‐1) and Foskett Ranch Assessment District No. 2004‐2
 City of Merced, CA, Fahrens Park Assessment District
 County of San Diego, CA*, Assessment District No. 4‐S  Hidden Valley Lakes Community Services District, CA*, (multiple districts)
 Lower Lake County Water District, CA*, Assessment District No. 1 City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 52 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
San Diego State
University, B.S.C.E., Civil
Engineering
Professional Engineer,
California, No. 40688
Professional Engineer,
Nevada, No. 12316
Affiliations
APWA
American Society of Civil
Engineers
Municipal Management
Assistants of Northern
California
Joe Francisco, PE
Principal
Experience Summary
Mr. Francisco founded Francisco and Associates in 2000 and has served as Principal since the company was established. Mr. Francisco is a Registered Civil Engineer in the State of California and will be your Quality Control Engineer responsible for reviewing all aspects of your project.  Mr. Francisco has more than thirty‐five (35) years of professional Public Financing and Assessment Engineering experience.

He has served as Project Manager, Quality Control Engineer, and Technical Advisor for the formation and administration of over 150 Special Financing Districts pursuant to the Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972, 1913 Municipal Improvement Act, Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Fire Suppression District Act, Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, Property and Business Improvement Law of 1994, and Special Fee and Tax Districts.  His experience also extends to the State of Nevada, having formed special financing districts under the authority of the Nevada Revised Statues. Mr. Francisco is extremely familiar with all the requirements of forming and administering Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts.  He has prepared numerous benefit spread methodologies, Engineer’s Reports, Proposition 218 compliance reviews, conducted Proposition 218 elections, prepared and mailed required legal notices and ballots, etc.

Prior to forming Francisco & Associates, Mr. Francisco was the Public Financing Chairman for the City of San Diego, responsible for the formation and administration of all their special financing districts.

This position required coordination between the City Attorney, City Auditor, City Engineer, Finance Director, and the City Treasurer along with outside Financial Advisors, Legal Counsels, Bond Underwriters, Developers and Property Owners.  After working for the City of San Diego for twelve (12) years, Mr. Francisco joined Willdan Associates (which acquired Muni‐Financial, a Financial Services Firm) in Southern California as their Southern California Assessment Engineer. Two (2) years later, he joined Berryman & Henigar’s Management & Finance Division and worked with them for over seven (7) years. His last position at Berryman & Henigar was Vice President in charge of the Northern California Management & Finance Division, responsible for the formation and administration of their special financing districts.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 53 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joe Francisco, PE
Principal
Select Relevant Project Experience:

The following includes a partial listing of financing district projects Mr.

Francisco has worked on during his career.

Acquisition Audits
 City of Davis, CA, Mace Ranch CFD, Clark County, NV, Various Special Improvement District
 County of Orange, CA, Rancho Santa Margarita CFD Series B  County of Orange, CA, Rancho Santa Margarita CFD Series E Assessment Districts Confirmed per Article XIIID of the California State Constitution (Proposition 218)
 Ambrose Recreation and Park District, CA, Districtwide Landscape Maint. Dist.
 City of Antioch, CA, Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts
 City of Brentwood, CA, Brentwood Landscape and Lighting Districts (60+ Dist.)
 City of Clovis, CA, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1  City of Concord, CA, Citywide Street Lighting District  City of Concord, CA, Downtown Landscape Maintenance District  City of Concord, CA, Pine Hollow Landscape Maintenance District,  Contra Costa County, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. (LL‐ 2),
 Town of Danville, CA, Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983‐1
 City of Encinitas, CA, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1  Fairfield‐Suisun Sewer District, CA, Sewer Service Charge  City of Hayward, CA, Maintenance District No. 1 & 2
 City of Hayward, CA, Landscape Maintenance District
 City of Livermore, CA, Downtown Maintenance District
 City of Novato, CA, Eucalyptus Avenue Assessment District  City of Oakland, CA, Wildfire Prevention Assessment District  City of Rohnert Park, CA, Citywide Fire Suppression District, ‐Santa Clara County, CA, County Lighting Service Area Assessment District  City of Solvang, CA, Solvang Mesa Landscape & Lighting District No. 2004‐1
 City of Sunnyvale, CA, Downtown Parking Assessment District  City of Sunnyvale, CA, Conway Road Assessment District Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA, Benefit Assessment District 90‐1  City of Vista, CA, Street Maintenance District
 City of Clovis, CA, Benefit Assessment District No. 95‐1  City of Lincoln, CA, Benefit Assessment District No. 1 City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 54 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joe Francisco, PE
Principal
Cost Reimbursement Districts
 City of San Diego, CA, International Business Center Cost Reimb.

District
 City of San Diego, CA, Mesa Shopping Center Cost Reimbursement District
Fee Districts
 City of Brentwood, CA, Sewer Standby Charge
 City of Brentwood, CA, Water Standby Charge
 City of Concord, CA, Sewer Service Charge
 Fairfield‐Suisun Sewer District, CA, Sewer Service Charge  City of Livermore, CA, Sewer Service Charge
 City of Norwalk, CA, Sewer Service Charge
 City of Oakland, CA, Sewer Service Charge
Fire Suppression Districts
 City of Oakland, CA, Wildfire Prevention Assessment District  City of Rohnert Park, CA, Citywide Fire Suppression District Geological Hazard Abatement Districts
 Canyon Lakes Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Hillcrest Heights Geological Hazard Abatement District  Leona Quarry Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Oakland Area Geological Hazard Abatement District
 SW Pittsburg Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Weidemann Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Wendt Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District
Maintenance Assessment Districts
 City of Alhambra, CA, Citywide Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District
 Ambrose Recreation and Park District, CA, Landscape Maintenance District
 City of Antioch, CA, Street Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts
 Arden Manor Recreation and Park District, CA, Districtwide Landscape Maintenance District
 City of Brentwood, CA, Landscape and Lighting Districts (60+ districts)
 City of Brentwood, CA, Citywide Park Assessment District, ‐City of Clovis, CA, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1
 City of Concord, CA, Citywide Street Lighting District  City of Concord, CA, Downtown Landscape Maintenance District  City of Concord, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. 3 City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 55 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joe Francisco, PE
Principal
 City of Concord, CA, Pine Hollow Estates Landscape and Lighting District
 Contra Costa County, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. (LL‐2)  Town of Danville, CA, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983‐1
 East Bay Regional Park District, CA, Districtwide Landscape Maint.

District
 City of Oakley, CA, Street Lighting and Landscape Assessment District No. 1
 Ortega Trails Recreation and Park District, CA, Wildomar Assessment District No. 68‐4632 & No. 68‐4633
 City of Sacramento, CA, Additional Library Services No. 96‐2  Santa Clara Open Space Authority, CA, Open Space Assessment District
 Santa Clara County, CA, County Lighting Service Area
 City of Santa Fe Springs, CA, Citywide Lighting and Landscape Maint. District
 City of Seal Beach, CA, Citywide Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District
 City of Solvang, CA, Solvang Mesa Landscape Maintenance District  City of Sunnyvale, CA, Downtown Parking Assessment District  City of Vista, CA, La Mirada Canyon Landscape Maintenance District
 City of Vista, CA, Special Lighting Assessment District No. 1 Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
 City of Brentwood, CA, CFD No. 2, 3, 4 & 5
 City of Campbell, CA, CFD No. 2
 City of Clayton, CA, CFD No. 1
 Contra Costa County, CA, CFD Nos. 2006‐1, 2008‐1 and 2010‐1  Cordova Recreation & Park District, CA, CFD Nos. 01‐1, 04‐1, 14‐1, 16‐1, 16‐2
 Town of Danville, CA, CFD No. 97‐1
 City of Davis, CA, Mace Ranch CFD ,‐
 City of Desert Hot Springs, CA, Public Safety CFD 93‐1  City of Hercules, CA, CFD No. 2017‐1
 City of Huntington Beach, CA, Ellis‐Goldenwest CFD 1990‐1  City of Lincoln, CA, CFD Nos. 2004‐1, 2004‐1, 2016‐1
 City of Livermore, CA, CFD Nos. 2012‐1, 2015‐1, 2016‐1  City of Napa, CA, CFD No. 2017‐1
 City of Oakland, CA, Rockridge CFD
 City of Oakley, CA, CFD Nos. 1 (Cyprus Grove), 2005‐1, and 2015‐2, ‐County of Orange, CA, CFD 87‐5B, Rancho Santa Margarita  County of Orange, CA, CFD 87‐5E, Rancho Santa Margarita City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 56 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joe Francisco, PE
Principle
 City of San Diego, CA, Miramar Ranch North CFD 90‐1
 City of San Jose, CA, North Coyote Valley CFD No. 5
 City of San Jose, CA, Great Oaks – Route 85 CFD No. 6  City of San Ramon, CA, CFD No. 2014‐1
 City of Sunnyvale, CA, CFD No. 1 and 3
 City of Victorville, CA, Western Addition CFD 90‐1
 City of Vista, CA, Hacienda Drive and Buena Vista Creek CFD 90‐2  City of Vista, CA, North County Square CFD 92‐1
Mosquito and Vector Abatement Districts
 Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control Assessment District, CA
 Santa Clara County Mosquito and Vector Control Assessment District, CA
 Shasta County Mosquito and Vector Control Assessment District, CA
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913
 City of Anderson, CA, Riverside Avenue East Assessment District  City of Brentwood, CA, Assessment Districts (11 separate districts)  City of Chula Vista, CA, Assessment Districts (10 separate districts)  City of Desert Hot Springs, CA, Arroyo Vista Assessment District No. 92‐1
 City of Desert Hot Springs, CA, Arroyo Vista Assessment District No. 93‐2
 City of Desert Hot Springs, CA, Two Bunch Palms Trail Assessment District 91‐1
 City of Lake Elsinore, CA, Assessment Districts 86‐1, 90‐1 and 93‐1,  City of Long Beach, CA, Downtown Transportation Assessment District, City of Newark, CA, AD Nos. 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, ‐ City of Merced, CA, 16th Street Assessment District
 City of Merced, CA, Liberty Park and Fahrens Assessment Districts  City of Merced, CA, North Merced Sewer Improvement District  City of Newark, CA, Assessment Districts (8 separate districts)  City of Novato, CA, Eucalyptus Avenue Assessment District  County of Orange, CA, Irvine Coast Assessment District No. 88‐1  City of San Clemente, CA, Lane Forester Ranch No. 98‐1  City of San Clemente, CA, Undergrounding Utility District  City of San Diego, CA, International Business Center Assessment District
 City of San Diego, CA, Mission Valley Heights Assessment District  City of San Diego, CA, Black Mountain Road Assessment District  City of Sunnyvale, CA, Conway Road Assessment District City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 57 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Joe Francisco, PE
Principle
 San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, CA, Flood Protection Restoration Assessment District No. 96‐1
 City of Vista, CA, Huff and Date Street Assessment District No. 86‐2  City of Vista, CA, Oceanside Blvd., and Melrose Drive Improvement District No. 80‐2R
 City of Vista, CA, Raceway Basin Assessment District No. 86‐1  City of Vista, CA, Sycamore Industrial Park Assessment District No. 81‐2R
Special Tax Districts
 Acalanes Unified High School District, CA, School Parcel Tax  Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, CA, Park Special Tax, Knightsen Town Community Services District, CA, Flood Control Special Tax
 City of Livermore, CA, Livermore Emergency Medical Services Tax  City of Livermore, CA, Storm Water Tax
 Livermore Area Recreation & Park District, CA, Livermore Special Tax District 97‐1
 Livermore Joint Unified School District, CA, School Parcel Tax  City of Newark, CA, Citywide Emergency Medical Services Tax  Novato Unified School District, CA, School Parcel Tax  City of Oakland, CA, Citywide Library Tax
 City of Oakland, CA, Oakland Emergency Medical Services Tax  City of Oakland, CA, Oakland Paramedic Services Tax
 City of San Jose, CA, Citywide Library Services Tax
 San Ramon Valley Unified School District, CA, School Parcel Tax City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 58 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Education/Training
University of Florida,
B.S.C.E., Civil Engineering
Graduated 2007
Affiliations
American Society of Civil
Engineers
American Public Works
Association
Municipal Management
Assistants of Northern
California
Committee on
Assessments, Special
Taxes, & Other Financing
Facilities (CASTOFF)
Eduardo Espinoza, PE
Principal‐in‐Charge/Assessment Engineer
Experience Summary
Prior to joining Francisco & Associates, Eduardo was a Project Engineer for Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. and worked on public and private sector projects including the preparation and analysis associated with due diligence reports for commercial and residential development, Flood Control and Water Quality Improvements, Roadway
Improvements, Watershed Management Plans, and Environmental Impact Studies.  Eduardo was responsible for civil improvements design including plan preparation and was a point of contact with clients and contractors. Eduardo also has extensive experience in the use of GIS and its various applications.  This experience includes shapefile and geodatabase creation and manipulation for all aspects of mapping and layer management. At Francisco and Associates, Eduardo has served as Project Manager and Quality Control Engineer for the formation and administration of over 100 Special Financing Districts pursuant to the 1913 Municipal Improvement Act, Landscape & Lighting Act of 1972, Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Benefit Assessment Act of 1982, and Special Fee and Tax Districts.

Eduardo is responsible for performing various tasks pertaining to all aspects of the formation and administration of Public Finance Districts.

These duties include implementing and creating benefit assessment methodologies, preparation of Engineer’s Reports, Council and Board presentations, community outreach meetings, design of factual informational brochures, GIS mapping and data manipulation, and creation and administration of the databases associated with the assessments and special taxes. Mr. Espinoza is extremely familiar with the requirements pertaining to the formation and administration of the various Financing Districts used throughout California.  He has served as Quality Control Engineer and Project Manager responsible for the preparation of Engineer’s Reports, Proposition 218 Compliance, Special Tax Formulas, Continuing Disclosure Reports, CDIAC Reports, R&T 163 Reports, Assessment District Segregations, Delinquency Administration, GIS Maps, Assessment Diagrams, etc.

Select Relevant Project Experience:

Assessment Districts Confirmed per Article XIIID of the California State Constitution (Proposition 218)
 City of Brentwood, CA, Brentwood Landscape and Lighting Districts (60+ Dist.)
 City of Clovis, CA, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 59 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Eduardo Espinoza,
PE
Principal‐in‐
Charge/Assessment
Engineer
 City of Concord, CA, Citywide Street Lighting District  City of Concord, CA, Downtown Landscape Maintenance District  City of Concord, CA, Pine Hollow Landscape Maintenance District  Town of Danville, CA, Citywide Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983‐1
 City of Hayward, CA, Maintenance District No. 1 & 2
 City of Hayward, CA, Landscape Maintenance District
 Santa Clara County, CA, County Lighting Service Area Assessment District
 City of Solvang, CA, Solvang Mesa Landscape & Lighting District No. 2004‐1
 City of Sunnyvale, CA, Downtown Parking Assessment District  City of Sunnyvale, CA, Conway Road Assessment District Benefit Assessment Act of 1982
 City of Clovis, CA, Benefit Assessment District No. 95‐1  City of Lincoln, CA, Benefit Assessment District No. 1 Fee Districts
 City of Brentwood, CA, Sewer Standby Charge
 City of Brentwood, CA, Water Standby Charge
 City of Concord, CA, Sewer Service Charge
 City of Livermore, CA, Sewer Service Charge
 City of Norwalk, CA, Sewer Service Charge
Geological Hazard Abatement Districts
 Canyon Lakes Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Hillcrest Heights Geological Hazard Abatement District  Leona Quarry Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Oakland Area Geological Hazard Abatement District
 SW Pittsburg Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Weidemann Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District
 Wendt Ranch Geological Hazard Abatement District
Maintenance Assessment Districts
 City of Brentwood, CA, Landscape and Lighting Districts (60+ districts)
 City of Brentwood, CA, Citywide Park Assessment District  City of Clovis, CA, Landscape Maintenance District No. 1  City of Concord, CA, Citywide Street Lighting District  City of Concord, CA, Downtown Landscape Maintenance District  City of Concord, CA, Landscape and Lighting District No. 3  City of Concord, CA, Pine Hollow Estates Landscape and Lighting District
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 60 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Eduardo Espinoza,
PE
Principal‐in‐
Charge/Assessment
Engineer
 Town of Danville, CA, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1983‐1
 City of Hercules, Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts (5 districts)
Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
 City of Brentwood, CA, CFD No. 2, 3, 4 & 5
 City of Campbell, CA, CFD No. 2
 Contra Costa County, CA, CFD Nos. 2006‐1, 2008‐1 and 2010‐1  Cordova Recreation & Park District, CA, CFD Nos. 01‐1, 04‐1, 14‐1, 16‐1, 16‐2
 City of Hercules, CA, CFD No. 2017‐1
 City of Lincoln, CA, CFD Nos. 2004‐1, 2004‐1, 2018‐1, and 2018‐2  City of Napa, CA, CFD No. 2017‐1
 City of Oakland, CA, Rockridge CFD
 City of Oakley, CA, CFD Nos. 1 (Cyprus Grove), 2005‐1, and 2015‐2  City of San Ramon, CA, CFD No. 2014‐1
 City of Sunnyvale, CA, CFD No. 1 and 3
Mosquito and Vector Abatement Districts
 Contra Costa County Mosquito and Vector Control Assessment District, CA
Municipal Improvement Act of 1913
 City of Anderson, CA, Riverside Avenue East Assessment District  City of Brentwood, CA, Assessment Districts (11 separate districts)  City of Lake Elsinore, CA, Assessment Districts 86‐1, 90‐1 and 93‐1  City of Newark, CA, AD Nos. 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34  City of Merced, CA, 16th Street Assessment District
 City of Merced, CA, Liberty Park Assessment District
 City of Merced, CA, North Merced Sewer Improvement District  City of Merced, CA, Fahrens Park Assessment District
 City of Newark, CA, Assessment Districts (8 separate districts) Special Tax Districts
 Alameda County, County Emergency Medical Services Tax  Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, CA, Park Special Tax  Knightsen Town Community Services District, CA, Flood Control Special Tax
 City of Livermore, CA, Livermore Emergency Medical Services Tax  City of Livermore, CA, Storm Water Tax
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 61 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Eduardo Espinoza,
PE
Principal‐in‐
Charge/Assessment
Engineer
 Livermore Area Recreation & Park District, CA, Livermore Special Tax District 97‐1
 City of Newark, CA, Citywide Emergency Medical Services Tax  City of Oakland, CA, Citywide Library Tax
 City of Oakland, CA, Oakland Emergency Medical Services Tax  City of Oakland, CA, Oakland Paramedic Services Tax
 City of Oakley, CA, Polices Services Tax
 City of San Jose, CA, Citywide Library Services Tax
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 62 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Appendix b – Cost of Services (continued from Section 2h) Below is AnchorCM’s 2022 Fee Schedule (anticipate 3% increase after December 31, 2022):

Principal
Forensic Engineer/Expert Witness $ 357.00
Principal Consultant $ 326.00
Principal‐in‐Charge $ 272.00
Engineer/Manager
Project Principal Engineer/CM $ 239.00
Senior Engineer/CM $ 217.00
Associate Engineer/CM $ 191.00
Staff Engineer/CM Level 4 (PE or equivalent) $ 175.00
Staff Engineer/CM Level 3 (PE or equivalent) $ 162.00
Staff Engineer/CM Level 2 (EIT or equivalent) $ 140.00
Staff Engineer/Deputy CM Level 1 $ 115.00
Junior Engineer/Assistant CM $ 110.00
Engineering Technician
Senior Engineering Technician $ 156.00
Mid Engineering Technician $ 122.00
Engineering Technician $ 98.00
Inspector
Construction Representative / Senior Inspector $ 165.00 Prevailing Wage Building / Construction Inspector $ 150.00 Prevailing Wage Soils / AC Inspector $ 150.00
Project Administrative Staff
Senior Contract Administrator $ 156.00
Bookkeeper $ 156.00
Contract Administrator $ 108.00
Contract Administration Assistant $ 74.00
Notes:

1. Field vehicleswill be billed at $1,700/month; cell phone and mobile broadband servicebilled at $90/mo.

2. Other direct costs(ODCs) and subconsultant fees are billed separately at ACM cost plus 10%.

3. Four‐ and eight‐hour minimums apply for cancellations,tasksrequiring travel, and legal appearances.

4. Contract projectstaffwillbebilled atthe contractrateforlegalwork and appearances,with yearlyescalation applied.

5. Inspector rates may vary due to prevailing wage requirements and determinations of the California Department of Industrial Relations and/or the Department of Labor.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 63 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
AMG Billing Rate Table:

Title Hourly Billing Rate Range
Associate Engineer $ 160.00 – 195.00
Communications Marketing Manager $ 145.00 ‐ 160.00
Engineering Technician $ 100.00 – 110.00
President $ 310.00
Principal $ 230.00 ‐ 280.00
Project Administrator $ 100.00 – 155.00
Project Controls Manager $ 190.00 ‐ 240.00
Project Controls Specialist $ 145.00 – 160.00
Project Coordinator $ 110.00 – 155.00
Project Manager $ 155.00 ‐ 210.00
Senior Consultant $ 250.00 ‐ 285.00
Senior Engineer $ 150.00 – 160.00
Senior Project Analyst $ 150.00 ‐ 165.00
Smart Cities Specialist $ 135.00 ‐ 150.00
Technology Manager $ 185.00 ‐ 195.00
Transit Planner $ 145.00 ‐ 165.00
Vice President $ 230.00 ‐ 280.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 64 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
CSG Billing Rate Table:

Professional Engineering Services 2022 Hourly Billing Rate Engineering Trainee $ 70.00
Administrative Assistant $ 80.00
Analyst $ 135.00
Engineering Designer/CASp Inspection & Consultation $ 145.00 Construction Inspector $ 150.00
Senior Analyst $ 160.00
Assistant Resident Engineer $ 175.00
Assistant Engineer $ 150.00
Associate Engineer $ 180.00
Senior Construction Inspector $ 165.00
Senior Engineer $ 205.00
Senior Land Surveyor $ 205.00
Resident Engineer $ 210.00
Structure Representative $ 210 .00
Senior Structural Engineer $ 225.00
Senior Project Manager $ 225.00
Principal Engineer $ 240.00
Senior Principal Engineer $ 260 .00
Two‐Person Survey Crew $ 340.00
Sustainability Program Management Services Hourly Rate
Sustainability Program Analyst $ 140.00
Sustainability Program Senior Analyst   $ 165.00
Sustainability Program Manager $ 195.00
Escalation: The prices noted above are subject to an increase of 3‐5% annual, effective January 1 of each year following the initiation of a services agreement.

City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 65 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Below is BSK’s hourly rate sheet for services:

Sustainability Program Management Services Hourly Rate
Principal $ 260.00
Senior Professional $ 230.00
Project Professional II $ 215.00
Project Professional I $ 180.00
Staff Professional II $ 160.00
Staff Professional I $ 145.00
Seismic GIS $ 200.00
GIS Specialist $ 145.00
Information Specialist II $ 160.00
Information Specialist I $ 145.00
CAD $ 105.00
Project Administrator $ 100.00

REIMBURSABLES
Mileage (Portal to Portal) $ 0.88
Per Diem (as required) $ 200.00
Bridge Toll Cost + 15%
Parking Fees Cost + 15%
Subconsultant Services Cost + 15%
Project Administration Fees 7% of Invoice
DIR Administration Fees 3% of Invoice
Project Setup (Project) $500.00

ANALYSIS SOFTWARE USAGE FEES
gINT (Project) $ 59.00
LPile (Project) $ 59.00
APile (Project) $ 59.00
SHAFT (Project) $ 59.00
GROUP (Project) $ 115.00
Cliq (Project) $ 59.00
LiquefyPro (Project) $ 59.00
LiqIT (Project) $ 50.00
NovoLIQ (Project) $ 59.00
Slide (Project) $ 115.00
Settle3D (Project) $ 115.00
ArcGIS (Project) $ 59.00
EZ‐FRISK (Per Project Site / Site Class) $ 550.00
TECHNICAL STAFF (North Prevailing Wage)
Group 1 ‐ Special Inspector $ 155.00
Group 2 ‐ Special Inspector $ 149.00
Group 3 ‐ Engineering Technician $ 135.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 66 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Group 4 ‐ Technician $ 118.00
Ground Penetrating Radar Scanning Technician $ 300.00
Core Drilling Technician $ 220.00
Floor Flatness Testing Technician $ 200.00
Courier $ 108.00
Laboratory Technician $ 120.00
Administrative Assistant / Clerical $ 90.00
Litigation support 1.5x standard rate

BASIS OF CHARGES FOR FIELD TECHNICIAN SERVICES
Field Work from 0 to 4 hours Bill 4 hours
Field Work from 4 to 8 hours Bill 8 hours
Field Work over 8 hours / Saturdays Bill time and a half Sundays, holidays and over 12 hours Bill double time
Second/Special/Multi‐Shift Base Rate x 12.5%
Show‐up time (no work performed) Bill 2 hours
Sampling or cylinder pickup, minimum charge Bill 2 hours

EQUIPMENT
Nuclear Gauge (Day) $ 64.00
Ultrasonic Weld Equipment (Day) $ 64.00
Torque Wrench (Day) $ 64.00
Proof Load Equipment (Day) $ 64.00
Rebar Locator / Pachometer $ 116.00
Hand Auger (Day) $ 232.00
Water Meter (Day) $ 59.00
Drilling Kit ‐ Paint, stakes and lath ‐ (Project) $ 30.00 Drilling Supplies ‐ Reuse of tubes/caps (Project) $ 290.00 Manometer (Day) $ 224.00
Double Ring Infiltrometer (Day) $ 579.00

DIR/PREVAILING WAGE ADMINISTRATION FEES (MONTHLY)
Certified Payroll / DIR Upload $ 300.00
Non‐Performance Certified Payroll / DIR Upload $ 100.00 Subcontractor Management / Compliance Forms $ 100.00
Additional LCP Tracker or Other Compliance Software $ 200.00 Additional Special Forms, as required $ 150.00
SOILS
Moisture Density Curves
Standard Proctor, 4" (ASTM/AASHTO) $ 269.00
Modified Proctor, 4" Mold (ASTM/AASHTO) $ 269.00
Modified Proctor, 6" mold (ASTM D1557) $ 286.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 67 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Caltrans Maximum Wet Density (CT 216) $ 245.00
Check Point $ 155.00
Particle Size Analysis
Sieve Analysis w/ Wash (ASTM D422) $ 195.00
Minus #200 Wash, Soil (ASTM D1140) $ 95.00
Hydrometer Analysis (ASTM D422) $ 256.00
Double Hydrometer (ASTM D4221) $ 357.00
Specific Gravity of Soil (ASTM D854) $ 183.00
Visual Classification (ASTM D2488) $ 49.00
Sand Equivalent (ASTM D2419) $ 144.00
% Organics in Soil (ASTM D2974) $ 156.00
Atterberg Limits / Swell Tests
Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318) $ 250.00
Shrinkage Limits of Soils (ASTM D427) $ 233.00
Moisture Density Test
Tube Density $ 57.00
Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D2216) $ 49.00
"R" Value Determination
R‐Value of Soils (CT 301) $ 454.00
R‐Value of Treated Materials (CT 301)) $ 502.00
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation (ASTM D2435) $ 478.00
Consolidation, Extra Points (ASTM D2435) $ 64.00
Collapse Potential of Soils (ASTM D2435) $ 233.00
Remolded Consolidation (ASTM D2435) $ 405.00
One‐Dimen Swell of Soil (ASTM D4546) $ 149.00
California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
CBR at 100% (ASTM D1883 or AASHTO T‐180) $ 585.00
CBR at 95% (ASTM D1883 or AASHTO T‐180) $ 1,133.00
Permeability Tests
Rigid Wall Permeability (ASTM D2434) $ 322.00
Flexible Wall Permeability (ASTM D5084) $ 502.00
Remolded Flexwall Perm (ASTM D5084) $ 638.00
Soil Corrosivity Tests
Minimum Resistivity of Soils (CT 643) $ 161.00
pH $ 75.00
Soluble Sulfate, Chloride and Sulfide $ 149.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 68 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Soil Cement Tests
Freeze Thaw Abrasion (ASTM D560) $ 715.00
Wetting‐Drying Abrasion (ASTM D559) $ 679.00
Preparation of Freeze‐Thaw or Wetting‐Drying Tests $ 859.00 Soil Cement Compression (ASTM D1633) $ 275.00
Other
Sand Density Calibration (ASTM D1566) $ 107.00
Unconfined Compression
Unconfined Compression (ASTM D2166) $ 144.00
Shear Tests
Direct Shear, Undisturbed (ASTM D3080) $ 250.00
Direct Shear, Remolded (ASTM D3080) $ 299.00
Triaxial Compression Testing QUOTE

AGGREGATES
Sieve Analysis Coarse or Fine (ASTM C136) $ 95.00
Sieve Analysis w/ Fineness Modulus $ 102.00
Minus 200 Wash, Aggregates (ASTM C117) $ 95.00
Specific Gravity/Absorption (ASTM C127) $ 183.00
Specific Gravity/Absorption (ASTM C128) $ 183.00
Organic Impurities (ASTM C40) $ 95.00
% Lumps/Friable Particles (ASTM C142) $ 92.00
% Flat and Elongated (ASTM D4791) $ 144.00
Fine Aggregate Angularity (AASHTO 304) $ 92.00
Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) $ 49.00
Aggregate Wt., pcf Compacted (ASTM C29) $ 101.00
Aggregate Wt., pcf Loose (ASTM C29) $ 75.00
Abrasion by LA Rattler, Small Size (ASTM C131) $ 269.00 Abrasion by LA Rattler, Large Size (ASTM C131) $ 327.00 Sodium Sulfate Soundness, Per Sieve (ASTM C88) $ 125.00 Sodium Sulfate Soundness, Min. Charge (ASTM C88) $ 399.00 Sand Equivalent (ASTM D2419 OR CT 217‐I) $ 144.00
Durability Index (CT 229) $ 286.00
Potential Reactivity of Aggregates QUOTE
Cleanness Value of Aggregate (CT 227) $ 206.00
Hydrometer (ASTM D422 OR CT 205‐E) $ 256.00
% Crushed particles (CT 205) $ 189.00
Lightweight Pieces (ASTM 123) $ 250.00

HOT MIX ASPHALT
JMF Mix Design, HVEEM $ 3,542.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 69 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
JMF Mix Design, Marshall $ 4,197.00
JMF Mix Design, Superpave / Caltrans $ 10,226.00
JMF Verification ‐ HMA ‐ Superpave / Caltrans $ 5,926.00 JMF Production Startup ‐ Superpave / Caltrans $ 5,513.00 RAP Material Testing ‐ Additional Fee $ 717.00
Rubberized RHMA Material ‐ Additional Fee $ 1,654.00
Hamburg Wheel Track (AASHTO T324) $ 3,005.00
Gyratory Compaction (AASHTO T312) $ 382.00
AC Content by Centrifuge (ASTM D2172) $ 328.00
AC Content‐Ignition (ASTM D6307 / CT382 / AASHTO T308) $ 256.00 Superpave Ignition Oven Correction (AASHTO T308) $ 595.00 Moisture Content of Asphalt (CT 370) $ 75.00
Gradation/Extraction Aggregate (ASTM D5444) $ 155.00
Film Stripping $ 102.00
Compaction/Preparation of HMA Briquette (CT 304) $ 250.00 Stabilometer Value (CT 366 / AASHTO T246) $ 201.00
AC Core Specific Gravity (ASTM D2726) $ 64.00
AC Core Specific Gravity ‐ Paraffin Coated (AASHTO T275) $ 167.00 AC Max Density Rice Method (ASTM D2041) $ 286.00
CIR/FDR Compressive Strength Testing (pre‐compacted $ 275.00 specimen, includes conditioning) – CTM 371
Tensile Strength Ratio (AASHTO T283) $ 1,253.00
Moisture Vapor Susceptibility (CT 307) $ 233.00
AC Surface Abrasion (CT 360) $ 572.00
Index Retained Strength (ASTM D1074‐D1075) $ 512.00
AC Hveem Maximum Density (CT 375) $ 512.00
Marshall Stability and Flow (ASTM D6927) $ 286.00
Calculated AC Maximum Density (CT 367) $ 113.00
Marshall Maximum Density, 50 Blows (ASTM D6926) $ 333.00 Examination of AC Cores $ 39.00
Thickness Determination of AC Cores $ 25.00
AC Tensile‐Strength Premixed ASTM D4867 $ 740.00
AC Tensile‐Strength Lab Mixed ASTM D4867 $ 1,253.00

CONCRETE
Cement Content Concrete (ASTM C1084) $ 431.00
Chemical Test (ASTM C150) QUOTE
Set Times Cement‐Vicat Needle (ASTM C191) $ 357.00
Specific Gravity of Hydraulic Cement (ASTM C191) $ 172.00 Lineal Shrinkage Set of 3 (ASTM C157) $ 454.00
Compression Test of Concrete ‐ 1 (ASTM C39) $ 39.00
Compression Test of Concrete ‐ 4 (ASTM C39) $ 155.00
Compression Test of Core (ASTM C42) $ 69.00
Preparation of Specimens, Sawing $ 78.00
Compressive Strength of Shotcrete Panel $ 364.00
Proportion of Cement in Concrete (ASTM C85) $ 399.00
Flexural Test Per Beam (ASTM C78) $ 102.00
Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete (ASTM C496) $ 102.00 City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 70 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Unit Weight Lt Wt Concrete (ASTM C567) $ 64.00
"AZ" Test‐Reinforced Concrete Pipe "Life Factor" $ 89.00 9 Pt Core Measurements, Each (ASTM C174) $ 39.00
Concrete Trial Batches QUOTE
Unit Weight & Abs Concrete (ASTM D642) $ 144.00
Accelerated Curing of Concrete (ASTM C684) $ 286.00
Cylinder Molds (each) $ 8.00
Storage of Concrete Cylinders for more than 45 Days $ 66.00 RH Probe $ 66.00
Calcium Chloride Kit $ 44.00
Mixing Water (pH, elec. conductance, chloride, sulfate) $ 113.00 Contact Soil (pH, elec. conductance, chloride, sulfate) $ 136.00

MASONRY
Concrete Masonry Units Testing (ASTM C90)
Compression Test Pavers, Single $ 88.00
Compression Test Composit CMU Prism $ 189.00
Specific Gravity and Unit Weight $ 131.00
Moisture Content $ 61.00
Compression Test, Masonry Units (ASTM C140) $ 119.00
Absorption / Moisture Content (ASTM C140) $ 119.00
Linear Shrinkage (ASTM C426) $ 460.00
Masonry Core Shear Test (Title 24) $ 214.00
Masonry Core Compression/Shear Test (Title 24) $ 214.00 Compression Test Brick, Each (ASTM C67) $ 85.00
Absorption/ Unit Wt. of Brick (ASTM C67) $ 89.00
Compression Test Grout (Set of 3 or 4) $ 137.00
Compression Test Mortar (Set of 3 or 4) $ 125.00

WELDING AND STRUCTURAL STEEL
Welder Qualification Testing
Welder / Procedure Welder Qualification Testing QUOTE
Face Bend of Steel $ 69.00
Root Bend of Weld Coupon $ 69.00
Side Bend of Weld Coupon $ 69.00
Tensile Test of Steel Coupon $ 95.00
Bend Test of Steel Coupon $ 82.00
Machining Charges (Per Coupon) QUOTE
Brinell Hardness of Steel (ASTM E10) $ 113.00
Rockwell Hardness of Steel (ASTM E18) $ 113.00
Bolt Ultimate Load $ 151.00
Bolt Hardness (set of 3) $ 113.00
Nut Hardness (set of 3) $ 113.00
Washer Hardness (set of 3) $ 113.00
Proof Loading, bolt or nut $ 161.00

REINFORCING STEEL
Tensile & Bend of Rebar, #3 ‐ #8 $ 169.00
Tensile & Bend of Rebar, #9 ‐ #11 $ 169.00
Bend Test of Rebar $ 69.00
Slip and Tensile Rebar Couplers(CT 670) $ 246.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 71 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Tension Test of WeldedWire Fabric QUOTE
Bend Test of Welded Wire Fabric QUOTE
Weld Shear Test, WeldedWire Fabric QUOTE
PT Cable Tensile and Elongation (ASTM A416or A421) $ 310.00 PT Cable Preparation QUOTE

FIREPROOFING
Cohesion/Adhesion Fireproofing Materials $ 144.00
Dry Density Fireproofing (ASTM E605) $ 108.00
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 Page 72 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003

AMG ADDITIONAL BILLING RATES
Please find below the current billing rates for all project personnel of Francisco & Associates, Inc.

Additional services including Community Facilities District (CFD) formations and annexations will be billed on a time and materials basis (T&M) at the hourly rates below unless a lump sum fee is agreed to by both parties.

Title Hourly Billing Rate Range
Principal $ 190.00
Project Manager $ 175.00
Project Engineer $ 130.00
Senior Financial Analyst $ 130.00
Financial Analyst $ 110.00
Project Analyst $ 110.00
GIS Analyst $ 110.00
Clerical $ 75.00
3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 345
Lafayette, CA 94549
(925) 890‐9732
[email protected]
www.anchorcm.com
Agenda Item: 9(e)
1 AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Dana Ayers, Community Development Director
DATE: March 15, 2022
SUBJECT: Update on the Contra Costa County Land Use Permit Revision Application Pertaining to the Amendment of the CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan and Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) Prepared for the Project
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the report updating the Council on status of the CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment and corresponding Draft EIR.

BACKGROUND
The CEMEX Clayton Quarry is an existing aggregate mining facility located on an approximately 335-acre property in unincorporated Contra Costa County, just south of the municipal boundaries of the cities of Clayton and Concord at the terminus of Mitchell Canyon Road. Aggregate mining has occurred on the site under various entities since at least 1948.

CEMEX has two entitlements through Contra Costa County: 1) Land Use Permit (LUP) # 363- 67, which authorizes operation of the quarry; and 2) LUP # 2054-81, which approved a reclamation plan for use of the site following cessation of mining operations.

In 2015, in response to concerns raised by County staff that the approved reclamation plan would create offsite drainage and flooding issues, CEMEX filed Application No. CDLP15- 02031 with the County Conservation and Development Department. Application No.

CDLP15-02031 (“the project”) consists of a request to amend the entitlement, granted under LUP # 2054-81, pertaining to the approved reclamation plan for the site. No amendments are requested to LUP # 363-67 authorizing operation of the mining activities of the quarry.

The reclamation plan approved under LUP # 2054-81 calls for filling the quarry mining pit with soil, requiring significant earth movement to achieve, and turning the site into developable land. By contrast, the now proposed and revised reclamation plan would convert the site to 2 of 3
privately-owned open space and create a lake on the property from storm runoff from within the site, although the lake would not be available for recreational use. The lake would be approximately 625 feet at its deepest point, would have a surface area of approximately 32 acres, and would take approximately 158 years to fill completely. Compared to the approved reclamation plan, the proposed reclamation plan would require substantially less fill and earth movement and would result in increased depth of the quarry pit, but with a decreased footprint of aggregate mining area and less cut of an existing slope that currently provides partial shielding of views of the quarry face. Under the proposed plan, quarry operations would also cease roughly 40 or more years earlier than the approved plan that projects cessation of operations around the year 2100.

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County hired a consultant to prepare an EIR for the project. Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was filed with the County Clerk on February 16, 2022, and was mailed or emailed shortly thereafter to public agencies (including the City of Clayton) and other interested parties. The Executive Summary of the Draft EIR is attached to this report, and the entirety of the Draft EIR is available on the County website at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8528/CEMEX-Clayton-Quarry.

The Draft EIR focused its analysis on the resource areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use Planning and Noise. Other resource areas were found early on to have less than significant impacts from the proposed reclamation plan revision and were analyzed with more brevity in the project’s Initial Study. Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, the proposed reclamation plan revision would have no significant impacts that could not be mitigated to within acceptable thresholds of significance.

Agencies and interested parties can submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the County through April 4, 2022. Following the end of the public comment period on the Draft EIR, the County and their consultant will prepare a Final EIR that consists of the Draft EIR, comments made on the Draft EIR, responses to the environmental issues raised on the analysis of the Draft EIR, and any revisions to the Draft EIR that may result from those responses.

The CEMEX Clayton Quarry Ad Hoc committee of the City Council, consisting of Councilmember Diaz and Mayor Cloven, met with City staff and representatives of CEMEX on March 8, 2022. At that meeting, CEMEX representatives shared information about the reclamation plan revision currently under consideration by the County. CEMEX representatives also expressed at that meeting a willingness to make a presentation on the proposed reclamation plan revision to the entirety of the City Council later this spring or early summer.

ANALYSIS
No specific action of the City Council is necessary at this time other than to receive this report.

Councilmembers are invited, as is the general public, to provide written comments to the County on the Draft EIR or to provide direction to City staff to include specific comments on the environmental analysis in a comment letter from the City to the County. Comments at this time should be limited to the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR rather than the 3 of 3
merits of the project or currently-entitled quarry operations. Following completion of the Draft EIR, the County Planning Commission will conduct one or more public hearings at which individuals and agencies can provide comments on the merits of the reclamation plan revision and whether they think County decision-makers should approve the revised reclamation plan.

ATTACHMENTS

1. CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment Draft EIR – Executive Summary

2. Notice of Availability of Draft EIR
February | 2022 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC (CEMEX) has applied to Contra Costa County (County) for an amendment to their approved reclamation plan (“approved reclamation plan”), which is the proposed project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is a modification of the approved reclamation plan and current land use, drainage, and encroachment entitlements (County File Number: CDLP15-2030/31) to allow for current state reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation and updated grading and drainage plans. The project site location is identified on Figure ES1, “Regional Location.” Except as specifically described below, CEMEX proposes no change to other elements of the existing operation (e.g., mining methods, processing operations, production levels, truck traffic, hours of operation). The vested mining operations are not the subject of this application, rather only the mine reclamation activities are the subject of this application.

This Executive Summary provides an overview of the proposed project, describes alternatives to the proposed project, and presents a summary of the environmental impacts and related mitigation identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

PUBLIC REVIEW
This Draft EIR is available for public review and comment during the 45-day period identified on the notice of availability/notice of completion (NOA/NOC) of an EIR, which accompanies this document.

This Draft EIR and all supporting technical documents and reference documents are available for public review at:

Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division
30 Muir Road
Martinez, California 94553
And at the link below:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7605/Major-Planning-Applications-Under-Consid During the 45-day public comment period, written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development at the following address:

Attn.: Mr. Francisco Avila, Principal Planner
Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Email: [email protected]

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-2 February | 2022
Oral comments on the Draft EIR are welcome and may be stated at a public meeting, which shall be held as indicated on the NOA/NOC.1
Following the public review and comment period, all written and oral comments received on the environmental analysis in this Draft EIR will receive a response. The responses and any other revisions to the Draft EIR will be prepared as a response-to-comments document. The Draft EIR and its appendices, together with the response-to-comments document will constitute the Final EIR for the proposed project.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Site Location
The project reclamation plan boundary comprises approximately 190 acres of a 335-acre property situated at 515 Mitchell Canyon Road, on the east side of Mount Zion, approximately one-half mile south of the City of Clayton in an unincorporated portion of the County, as shown on Figure ES-1.

Project Objectives
The project purpose is to revise the approved reclamation plan to respond to changed circumstances that have resulted in the approved reclamation plan’s infeasibility and to provide an environmentally superior alternative for reclamation. Carrying out reclamation under the currently approved reclamation plan would require the handling of large quantities of overburden and would result in significant uncontrolled post-reclamation drainage releases into Mitchell Creek and the residential neighborhoods below the quarry.

In response to a Notice to Comply issued by the County on November 17, 2014, CEMEX filed an application for a Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment on July 20, 2015, which the County assigned Application No. CDLP15-02031 (2015 Application). In its Notice to Comply, which required submittal of final grading and drainage plans for the quarry, the County provided an option for CEMEX to file an application to modify the conditions of approval of its current permits for an alternative drainage design for quarry reclamation. The 2015 Application presented CEMEX’s initial application to modify current permits for an alternative final grading and drainage plan that would provide for a future quarry lake with a controlled stormwater outflow. In August 2015, the County deemed the 2015 Application incomplete and requested additional information and technical study in the areas of biology, slope stability, and hydrology.

In response, CEMEX filed a new application in June 2017, which supersedes the 2015 Application in its entirety. Specifically, CEMEX proposes an amendment to the approved reclamation plan through adoption of a revised reclamation plan for the Clayton Quarry, dated October 2020 (“project” and/or “revised reclamation plan”). The project requires amendments to CEMEX’s current land use entitlements, LUP #363- 67 and LUP #2054-81. The amendment to the LUP #363-67 operating permit is only for purposes of conforming any reclamation-related conditions of approval to the revised reclamation plan. 1 This is subject to change, based on circumstances and restrictions due to Covid-19, and may involve a virtual hearing via video conference (e.g. Zoom).

Regional Location

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT

DRAFT EIR
Figure ES-1
SOURCE: Compass Land Group 2020; modified by Benchmark Resources in 2021 NOTE: Figure not to scale
CEMEX Clayton Quarry
Property Boundary
Project Site
Project Site

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-4 February | 2022

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-5
The reclamation plan amendment provides site-specific actions designed to meet the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The proposed project includes the following objectives:
1) Complete reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years (including monitoring) to a post‐ mining land use of open space;
2) Facilitate reduction of the surface mining footprint that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing a visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east; 3) Create permanent overburden fill areas to be revegetated; 4) Establish final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet above mean sea level (msl) with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; 5) Establish a final drainage plan that provides for the formation of a lake and control of stormwater discharge from the project site in a manner that would not result in downstream flooding; 6) Facilitate revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; 7) Clarify pre-Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the 1983 approved reclamation plan; 8) Achieve current State reclamation standards during reclamation; 9) Maximize the extraction of the remaining available on-site hardrock resources through the anticipated reclamation end date of 2068, including a change in the final bottom elevation of excavation the quarry pit to 110 feet msl;
10) Continue to supply the regional demands for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) grade aggregate and thereby reduce regional vehicle miles travelled (VMT); and 11) Establish a reclamation plan that limits the emission of air quality criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and dust.

Project Features
As stated previously, CEMEX has applied to the County for an amendment to their approved reclamation plan, which amendment application is the proposed project under CEQA. The project is a modification of an approved reclamation plan and existing entitlements for a vested mining operation.

Except as outlined below, the applicant proposes no change to any fundamental elements of the existing mining operation (e.g., mining methods, processing operations, production levels, truck traffic, hours of operation).

The 1983 approved reclamation plan envisions reclamation of an open-pit, multi-bench quarry over an anticipated period of 120 years. The approved plan also includes construction of an interim mining drainage slot that would provide a generally uncontrolled hydrologic connection to natural drainage courses north of the project site, removal of processing plants and equipment, revegetation of certain quarry benches with pine trees, revegetation of the backfilled quarry floor with natural grasses and wildflowers, and removal of the east rim of the quarry pit with backfill to elevation 650 feet msl providing for the reclaimed quarry to drain via sheet flow toward Mitchell Canyon Road and the reclaimed plant site to drain to the City of Concord.

The applicant seeks to amend the approved reclamation plan to include changes that are more sensitive to the environment and surrounding community, while achieving current surface mining reclamation standards. The planned postmining end use is open space. The proposed project would include:

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-6 February | 2022
• Reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years to a post-mining land use of open space; • Reduction of the surface mining disturbance footprint relative to the existing reclamation plan that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing a visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east;
• Permanent overburden fill areas;
• Final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet msl with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; • A final drainage plan that provides for the quarry pit to slowly fill with stormwater following reclamation to form a quarry lake with a controlled outflow that conveys stormwater to natural drainage courses and man-made drainage facilities;
• Removal of facilities, structures and equipment associated with mining; • Revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas, and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; • Elimination of requirements to backfill, grade, and compact the quarry floor and benches, given that the planned open space end use would provide for a future quarry lake; • Clarification of pre-SMARA (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the approved reclamation plan;
• A tree permit request to remove 79 out of 123 existing trees, to be replaced with 400 foothill pine trees that would form a tree screen along the quarry east rim; • Compliance with current State reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation; • A new screening berm to create a visual barrier between the existing processing plant site and residential communities to the north; and
• An exception request to Division 914 of the Contra Costa Code of Ordinances (Offsite Collect and Convey requirement).

Consistent with the approved reclamation plan, the project would continue to remove facilities, structures, and equipment associated with mining, including the plant site. Post-reclamation, the applicant would continue to own the property, which would be used for open space. Table ES-1, “Comparison of Proposed Project to Approved Reclamation Plan,” offers a comparison between major features of the approved reclamation plan and the proposed project.

TABLE ES-1

COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT TO APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN Reclamation Feature 1983 Approved Reclamation Plan Proposed Project Elevations Mining floor elevation: 500 feet msl
Reclamation floor elevation: 650 feet msl
Mining floor elevation: 110 feet msl
Reclamation floor elevation: 110 feet msl
End uses Not specified.

Open space, which would provide for
the quarry pit to slowly fill with
stormwater to form a quarry lake with a
controlled outflow.

Total area disturbed by
mining and reclamation Approximately 184 acres Approximately 190 acres Quarry pit area Approximately 154 acres Approximately 85 acres

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-7
Reclamation Feature 1983 Approved Reclamation Plan Proposed Project Quantity and type of
mineral to be mined (from
time of application):

Diabase: quantity noted as confidential
Knoxville: quantity noted as confidential
Diabase: 23.8 million tons
Knoxville: 4.6 million tons
Total: 28.4 million tons
Termination date: Anticipated 120 years from 1981, or year 2101
Anticipated 47 years from 2021, or year
2068
Quarry pit backfill:

Required to minimum floor elevation
650 feet msl, with minimum pit floor
slope gradient of 2%.

Not required, although CEMEX may
place overburden in the pit floor as part
of reclamation.

East Rim: Mined and eliminated to facilitate
backfill Left intact with tree screen.

Source: Compass Land Group 2020.

Notes: msl = above mean sea level
Required Approvals
As the local land use authority, Contra Costa County is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for approving the project as a whole and is therefore the lead agency for purposes of environmental review under both CEQA and SMARA. Other agencies may have permitting or approval authority over various aspects of the project. These agencies include the following:

Federal Agencies
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 permit)
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 7 Consultation; Incidental Take Statement) State Agencies
• California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation (Reclamation Plan Advisory Review, Release of Financial Assurance)
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Streambed Alteration Agreement and possibly a California Endangered Species Act permit)
Regional and Local Agencies
• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Certification and/or Waters of the State permit)
• Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • Contra Costa County, Department of Public Works

DRAFT EIR SCOPE AND ISSUES EVALUATED
Issues Evaluated and Issues Eliminated from Further Consideration While CEQA does not require preparation of an Initial Study when the lead agency elects to prepare an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[d]), the County has prepared an Environmental Checklist Form / CEQA Initial Study to substantiate its scoping process in evaluating the potential significance of the project regarding the CEQA Appendix G criteria. The evaluation regarding the significance of those issues that are not discussed in detail in the Draft EIR is provided in the Initial Study (included as Appendix A-4, “Initial Study,” of the Draft EIR) and discussed further in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of the Draft EIR.

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-8 February | 2022
As an initial step in the environmental review process, issues identified in the Environmental Checklist of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines were considered to determine whether the project would have the potential to result in significant impacts associated with each issue. The initial review determined that the project may result in potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the following Appendix G Environmental Checklist resource topics:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Geology and Soils
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
The initial review determined that the project would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with the following resource topics and eliminated these issues from further consideration in the Draft EIR:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Services Systems
• Wildfire
Alternatives
The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic project objectives (Guidelines Section D15126.6). The “no project” alternative, which considers what impacts would occur if conditions continue, must be considered (Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]), and the EIR must also identify the environmentally superior alternative. If the “no project” alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]).

Summary of Alternatives
The alternatives evaluation considered several potential alternatives. Some were eliminated as they were determined to either not have the potential to feasibly achieve the basic project objectives and/or reduce significant project impacts. The following alternatives were selected and analyzed/compared to the project and are evaluated in the Draft EIR:

Alternative 1: No Project—Implementation of the Approved Reclamation Plan Alternative Under the No Project—Implementation of the Approved Reclamation Plan Alternative, the County would not approve a Reclamation Plan Amendment. Instead, the project site would be reclaimed up to the final phase (Phase 1C) of the approved reclamation plan, consistent with existing permits.

Under this alternative, mining of the quarry pit beyond the bottom elevation of 500 feet above msl specified in the approved reclamation plan would not occur. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 1 would not result in the creation of a quarry lake and would not leave the east rim intact. Instead, the east rim of the quarry would be excavated and overburden fill materials would be pushed into the quarry excavation such that a relatively flat reclaimed area with a slight slope toward the east would

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
February | 2022 ES-9
exist. The final elevation of the backfilled quarry pit area would be about 650 feet msl. Rather than a diversion control structure as included in the proposed project, drainage from the site would flow overland across the site. Drainage from the quarry area would flow generally uncontrolled into Mitchell Creek. No tree screen or berms would impede the views of the exposed quarry pit and benches under this alternative. The end use would remain open space.

Alternative 2: Prohibited Nighttime Reclamation Alternative Under Alternative 2: Prohibited Nighttime Reclamation Alternative, would be the same as the proposed project except all project-related reclamation, including construction of the control outlet structure, overburden fill areas, screening berm, and grading for final reclamation would only be permitted to take place during operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Some nighttime lighting of project facilities would still be required for security and safety purposes under this alternative; however, reclamation construction lighting and reclamation-related traffic traveling to and from the project site would be prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday and 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. Saturday and all-day Sunday. The current operational (i.e. non-reclamation) mining activities would not be subject to this restriction.

Alternative 2 would meet all of the proposed project objectives.

Alternative 3: In-kind Replacement for Protected Oaks Alternative Alternative 3, In-kind Replacement for Protected Oaks Alternative, would be the same as the proposed project except the 77 blue oak and valley oak trees that would be removed would be replaced with inkind species at a 3:1 ratio instead of the proposed 400 foothill pines. Alternative 3 would meet all of the proposed project objectives.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-2, “Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures,” provides a summary of the project impacts identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR, presents mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, and lists the impact significance both without and with mitigation applied. As shown in Table ES-2, several impacts are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation. All remaining impacts would be significant or potentially significant prior to the implementation of mitigation measures but would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation applied. No impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measures (e.g., Mitigation Measure 4.1-4, “Daily Limitation of Construction Hours”) do not apply to the existing, vested mine and processing plant operations which are not part of this project.

In addition to evaluating project-specific impacts, an EIR must also evaluate cumulative impacts.

Cumulative impacts are those that would result from project impacts when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects. The analysis determined that the project would not result in significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts (see Chapter 5, “Cumulative Impacts”).

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-10
TABLE ES-2

SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

INITIAL STUDY

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No further analysis was performed for the purposes of this Draft EIR. Please see analysis provided in Appendix A-4, “Initial Study.” Impact 5b: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5
Impact 5c: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries
Impact 18a: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)
Impact 18b: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1
PS Mitigation Measure CUL-1: The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented during project demolition/construction activities.

1. A program of on-site education to instruct all
demolition/construction personnel in the identification of prehistoric and historic deposits shall be conducted prior to the start of any grading or construction activities.

2. If archaeological materials are uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation, all work within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA), and/or Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA), and the Wilton Rancheria Tribe, have had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) if deemed necessary.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2:

Should human remains be uncovered during grading, trenching, or other onsite excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until the County coroner has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the human remains and determine the proper treatment and disposition of the remains. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if the coroner determines the remains may be those of a Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by telephone within 24 hours.

Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC will then determine a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) tribe and contact them.

The MLD tribe has 48 hours from the time they are given access to the site to make recommendations to the land owner for treatment and disposition of the ancestor’s remains. The land owner shall follow the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 for the remains.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-11
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.1-1: Substantial Adverse Effect on a Scenic Vista NI None required. NI Impact 4.1-2: Substantially Damage Scenic Resources Within View of a Scenic Highway
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.1-3: Substantial Degradation of the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.1-4: Creation of a New Source of Substantial Light and Glare That Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime
Views in the Area
PS Mitigation Measure 4.1-4: Daily Limitation of Reclamation-Related Construction Activities
All reclamation-related construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.

LTS

AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.2-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-2: 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
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.2-4: Result in Other Emissions Adversely Affecting a Substantial Number of People
LTS None required. LTS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 4.3-1: Have an Adverse Effect, Directly or Indirectly, on Habitat for Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Species due to Ground Surface Disturbance and Vegetation Removal
PS Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Conduct Botanical Surveys To avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status plants, the following shall apply:

1. Prior to the commencement of reclamation-related ground disturbing activity (which includes clearing, grubbing, or grading) in previously undisturbed areas identified as having potential special status plant species in the project biological resources assessment report, a qualified botanist or biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for special status rare plant species. The survey shall occur within 30 days prior to commencement of groundLTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-12
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
disturbing activity. If a special-status species is detected, the applicant shall avoid activity in the area if doing so is feasible in conjunction with meeting project objectives.

2. If rare plant species are found and avoidance is not feasible, and the plant is listed under CESA, then the applicant shall mitigate on a 1:1 ratio and obtain and comply with necessary permits from CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Conduct Special-status Vertebrates Surveys, Personnel Training, and Avoidance
To avoid and minimize impacts to special status vertebrates, the following shall apply.

1. No more than 48 hours prior to the commencement of reclamationrelated ground disturbing activity (i.e., clearing, grubbing, or grading) associated with the overburden fill areas, tree screen, diversion outlet structure, or other areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of suitable habitat in the project reclamation area.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor, and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity.

3. Construction personnel shall receive worker environmental awareness training prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. This training instructs workers how to recognize special status vertebrate species and their habitat.

4. If a special-status species is detected, all work will be halted until the animal has left the work area or, if necessary, has been relocated by a qualified biologist with applicable authorizations.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c: Conduct Bat Surveys, Avoidance, and Employ Approved Eviction When Necessary
To avoid and minimize potential impacts to special status bats, the following shall apply:

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-13
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity (which includes clearing, grubbing, or grading) is to commence within 50 feet of suitable bat habitat, including structures and trees with large cavities, during the winter hibernaculum season (e.g., November 1 through March 31), then a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey within 50 feet of the reclamation project footprint on the CEMEX property to determine if a potential winter hibernaculum is present, and to identify and map potential hibernaculum sites.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. If no winter hibernaculum sites are found during the survey, then no further mitigation would be required.

3. If potential hibernaculum sites are found, then the applicant shall avoid all areas within a 50-foot buffer around the potential hibernaculum sites until bats have vacated the hibernaculum. Winter hibernaculum habitat shall be considered fully avoided if reclamation-related activities do not impinge on a 50-foot buffer established by the qualified biologist around an existing or potential winter hibernaculum site. The qualified biologist will determine if non-maternity and nonhibernaculum day and night roosts are present on the project site. If necessary, a qualified biologist will use safe eviction methods to remove bats if direct impacts to nonmaternity and non-hibernaculum day and night roosts cannot be avoided. If a winter hibernaculum site is present, then reclamation activities shall not occur within 50 feet until the hibernaculum is vacated, or, if necessary, safely evicted using methods acceptable to CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d: Wildlife Exclusion Fence
A temporary wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed around the perimeter of any previously undisturbed area prior to the initiation of new grounddisturbing activities to discourage small wildlife from entering the site. The

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-14
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
fence shall have escape funnels pointing outwards to allow small wildlife to exit the work area.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e: Biologist Presence
A qualified biologist shall be present for all initial reclamation-related ground-disturbing activities in areas that have not been previously disturbed.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f: No Monofilament Plastics
To prevent the entrapment of Alameda striped racers and other wildlife, monofilament plastics shall not be used for erosion control.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1g: Conduct Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance To avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, the following shall apply:

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity is to commence within 50 feet of nesting habitat between February 1 and August 31, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active migratory nests within 5 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.

2. The biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Department of Conservation and Development prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activity. If no active nests are found during the survey, then no further mitigation would be required.

3. If active nests are found in the survey area, then a non-disturbance buffer centered on the nest and of a size determined by a qualified biologist shall be established and maintained around the nest to prevent nest failure. Active nests shall be monitored weekly to ensure that the exclusion zones are intact and that the young are developing. All construction activities shall be avoided within this buffer area until a qualified biologist determines that nestlings have fledged and are foraging independently as determined by a qualified

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-15
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
biologist, unless otherwise approved by the Conservation and Development Department and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h: Burrowing Owl Protection
To avoid and minimize potential impacts to western burrowing owl, the following shall apply:

1. If reclamation-related ground disturbing activity is to commence in previously undisturbed areas within 500 feet of suitable owl burrow habitat, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl. The survey shall occur within 30 days prior to the date that reclamation activities will encroach within 500 feet of suitable habitat. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the following:
a) A survey for burrows and owls shall be conducted by walking through suitable habitat over the proposed reclamation
construction site and in areas within 500 feet of the project disturbance area.
b) Pedestrian survey transects should be spaced to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. The distance between transect center lines should be no more than 30 meters, and should be reduced to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and ground surface visibility. Surveyors should maintain a minimum distance of 50 meters from any owls or occupied burrows.
c) If no occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found in the survey area, then the biologist shall supply a brief written report (including date, time of survey, survey method, name of surveyor and survey results) to the Conservation and
Development Department and no further mitigation is
necessary.
d) If occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found, then a complete burrowing owl survey is required. This consists of a

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-16
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
minimum of four site visits conducted on four separate days, which must also be consistent with the Survey Method, Weather Conditions, and Time of Day sections of Appendix D of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” (March 2012). The
applicant shall then submit a survey report to the Planning Division which is consistent with the CDFW 2012 Report. e) If occupied burrows or burrowing owls are found during the complete burrowing owl survey, then the applicant shall contact the Planning Division and consult with CDFW prior to
construction, and will be required to submit a Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan (subject to the approval of the Planning Division and CDFW). This plan must document all proposed measures, including avoidance, minimization, exclusion, relocation, or other measures, and include a plan to monitor mitigation success. The CDFW “Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation” (March 2012) should be used in the development of the mitigation plan.

2. Comply with the mitigation requirements and conditions of any Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement (Agreement), if any, with CDFW for project reclamation activities, as applicable to burrowing owl. If there is a conflict between the terms of mitigation item 1 above and the Agreement, then the Applicant shall abide by the terms of the Agreement.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1i: Bumblebee Protection
To minimize the take of Crotch’s and western bumblebee species, a qualified entomologist shall conduct a take avoidance survey for active bumblebee colony nesting sites in any previously undisturbed area prior to each phase of reclamation-related construction, if the work will occur during the flying season. Survey results, including negative findings, shall be submitted to CDFW prior to implementing reclamation-related ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall take place during flying season when the species is most likely to be detected above ground, between March 1 and September 1.

The surveys shall occur when temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-17
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
(°F), on sunny days with wind speeds below 8 miles per hour, and at least 2 hours after sunrise and 3 hours before sunset. Surveyors shall conduct transect surveys focusing on detection of foraging bumble bees and underground nests using visual aids such as binoculars. At minimum, a survey report should provide the following: If no Crotch’s or western bumble bees or potential Crotch’s or western bumble bees are detected, no further mitigation is required. If potential Crotch’s or western bumble bees are seen but cannot be identified, the applicant shall obtain authorization from CDFW to use nonlethal netting methods to capture bumble bees to identify them to species. If protected bumble bee nests are found, a plan to protect bumble bee nests and individuals to ensure no take of Crotch’s and western bumblebee species shall be developed by a qualified entomologist in consultation with the Conservation and Development Department. The Conservation and Development Department shall approve the plan prior to implementation.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1j: Take Coverage for Federally Listed Species If required by the USFWS for certain previously undisturbed areas to support reclamation-related construction activity, the applicant shall obtain take coverage for federally listed species (Alameda striped racer and California red-legged frog). This may be from a Section 7 Consultation resulting in a Biological Opinion (BO) or a Section 10 consultation resulting in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). All avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the BO or HCP shall be implemented as a condition for operating in that area.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1k: Trapping Federally Listed Species If necessary, a qualified biologist approved under an active BO or HCP will be contracted to trap and move federally listed species (Alameda striped racer and California red-legged frog) to nearby suitable habitat.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1l: Take Permit for State Listed Species If required by CDFW, the applicant shall obtain a California Endangered Species Act Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for the Alameda striped racer associated with new reclamation-related disturbances in previously undisturbed areas. If further future information warrants their inclusion, the permit shall cover Crotch’s and/or western bumble bee as well. All avoidance,

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-18
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
minimization, and mitigation measures in the ITP shall be implemented as a condition for operating in that area.

Impact 4.3-2: Have an Adverse Effect, Directly or Indirectly, on Habitat for Special-Status Plant or Wildlife Species due to Exposure to Quarry Pit Lake Water
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.3-3: Have an Adverse Effect on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities
S Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c,

4.3-1d, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l (see Impact 4.3-1) and Mitigation Measures 4.3-6a through 4.3-6i (see Impact 4.3-6).

Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Acquire Necessary Permits for Jurisdictional Features
The applicant shall mitigate these impacts at an approved ratio and shall obtain required permits to impact the jurisdictional ephemeral stream from the relevant regulatory agencies, including the USACOE, CDFW, and RWQCB, as applicable. These permits will include conditions and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the quarry shall implement during construction. These permits may also specify mitigation, which the quarry shall provide as specified by the agencies. All terms of the permits shall be implemented as a condition of the project. If permits require mitigation at a higher ratio than 1:1, that requirement will be met.

LTS
Impact 4.3-4: Have an Adverse Effect on Protected Wetlands PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 (see Impact 4.3- 3)
LTS
Impact 4.3-5: Interfere with Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species Movement, Corridors, or Nursery Sites
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1b, 4.3-1d, 4.3-1e,

4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, and 4.3-1l (see Impact 4.3-1).

LTS
Impact 4.3-6: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources
S Mitigation Measure 4.3-6a: Tree Avoidance
The project reclamation plan shall avoid as many protected trees as feasible.

The project plan shall incorporate placement of tree protection fencing outside of the avoided trees’ drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12.

Preserved trees on the project site shall be avoided during construction by following best management practices as outlined in the following measures.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-19
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Mitigation Measure 4.3-6b: Tree Maintenance During Construction, Root Zones
Tree roots often extend far beyond the canopy drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12. Excavation work within the drip line of avoided trees shall not be allowed.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6c: Tree Protection Fencing
Prior to the start of fill disposal, Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) shall be installed. The TPF shall be maintained during the entire fill disposal process to prevent direct damage to trees and their growing environment. The TPF shall consist of blaze orange barrier fencing supported by metal “Trail” fence posts, unless wildlife exclusion fencing is in place. The TPF shall be placed at a distance that is at or outside of the drip lines, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, of avoided trees. The TPF shall be installed as part of the site preparation before fill disposal or tree removal/trimming begins and shall be installed under the supervision of a qualified arborist. The TPF shall not be altered in any way that would increase the encroachment on the avoided trees during fill activities.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6d: Use of Heavy Equipment
Heavy machinery shall not be allowed to operate (excavation, grading, drainage and leveling) or park within the drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, of avoided trees unless approved by a qualified arborist.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6e: Storage of Construction Materials and Debris Fill materials shall not be placed against the trunks of avoided trees. Disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line, which shall be determined by the diameter of each tree trunk in inches at breast height and multiplied by 12, is prohibited.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6f: Incidental Damage to Protected Trees The attachment of wires, signs, and ropes to any protected tree is strictly prohibited. Workers may be allowed to rest under trees, but they must not injure trees by any means. The County shall be notified if any damage occurs

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-20
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
to a retained tree during fill disposal so that proper treatment may be administered.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6g: Trimming
All pruning of protected trees shall be performed by a licensed contractor familiar with International Society of Arboriculture pruning guidelines and shall comply with the guidelines established by the International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning, and any special conditions as determined by a certified arborist or the County’s Director. A certified arborist shall coordinate all activities involving protected trees near the construction zone that are not permitted for removal.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6h: Tree Planting Monitoring and Establishment Tree planting shall be monitored according to the methods outlined in Section 2.9.6 of the Reclamation Plan for successful establishment of installed trees. Establishment will be considered successful if 50 percent of the number of plantings required by the County have become established with no significant intervention for at least two years.

Mitigation Measure 4.3-6i: Oak Tree Plan
The operator of the Clayton Quarry shall consult with an arborist to develop a plan that identifies where oak trees can be planted within the project site upon the completion of mining without substantially exacerbating wildfire risk on the site. The oak tree plan shall be provided to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and to the Planning Division for review and comment, to confirm that the additional oaks would not substantially exacerbate wildfire risk by connecting the two very high fire hazard severity zones on the project site. Oak trees shall be planted on the site during final reclamation activities as indicated in the final oak tree plan. Tree planting shall be monitored according to the methods outlined in Section 2.9.6 of the Reclamation Plan for the successful establishment of installed trees. The monitoring shall verify that the following performance standard is met: the planted trees must be healthy and must survive three years without intervention to be considered established. If the survival rate is less than 80 percent after three years, the trees that did not survive shall be replaced. The verification monitoring shall continue until the 80 percent survival rate of the

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-21
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
trees planted under the oak tree plan has been achieved for three consecutive years.

Impact 4.3-7: Conflict with Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Local or Regional Plan Protecting Biological
Resources
LTS None required. LTS

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 4.4-1: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Rupture of a Known Fault LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-2: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Strong Seismic Ground
Shaking
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-3: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, as Result of SeismicallyInduced Liquefaction, Lateral Spreading, and Settlement LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-4: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Rockfalls and Landslides within the Quarry
PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Slope Stability Monitoring The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall retain a Countyapproved qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer experienced in evaluating the stability of slopes within the Knoxville formation at the diabase/Knoxville contact. These slopes shall be inspected every 5 years, or at an alternative frequency, if recommended by the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and approved by the County.

The results of the inspection and any recommendations by the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall be documented and submitted to the County within 30 days following the inspection. The report shall be accompanied with the Board of Supervisor’s approved fee for review by the County Geologist. Inspections shall summarize the rock types observed, provide detailed rock mass descriptions and measured discontinuity orientations, observed seepage conditions, and compare the observed conditions relative to those identified in the project geotechnical evaluation completed for the revised reclamation plan by Golder Associates Inc. [Golder] in 2017 (“Geotechnical Evaluations for Revised Reclamation Plan, LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-22
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Clayton Quarry, Clayton, California”). The geotechnical evaluation shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. If the conditions vary from the geotechnical evaluation document characterization, the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer shall evaluate whether the changes have an adverse impact on slope stability, and, if so, provide feasible recommendations to mitigate the slope stability concerns to achieve a minimum static factor of safety of 1.3 and a pseudo-static factor of safety greater than 1.0. Recommendations shall be implemented within 6 months by the Operator, if feasible, otherwise as soon as practicable thereafter, upon approval by the County.

Impact 4.4-5: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Landslides within the
Overburden Fill Areas
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-6: Exposure of People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death, as a Result of Landslides within the Plant Site Area
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-7: Result in Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Topsoil
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.6-4a and 4.6-4b (see Impact 4.6-4).

LTS
Impact 4.4-8: Be Located on a Geologic Unit or Soil That Is Unstable, or That Would Become Unstable as a Result of the Project and Potentially Result in On- or Off-Site Landslide, Lateral Spreading, Subsidence, Liquefaction or Collapse PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 (see Impact 4.4- 4).

LTS
Impact 4.4-9: Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.4-10: Directly or indirectly Destroy a Unique
Geological Feature
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.4-11: Directly or indirectly Destroy a Unique
Paleontological Resource
PS Mitigation Measure 4.4-11: Paleontological Resources The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall inform its employees and contractors involved in ground disturbing activities associated with reclamation of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-23
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
and shall include the following directive in employee and contractor training materials:
“The subsurface of the quarry may be sensitive for paleontological resources in the Knoxville formation (the east side of the quarry pit) and in the alluvium (east side of the Clayton Quarry property). If paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface disturbance, all ground disturbing activities within 100 feet of the find shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Employees and contractors shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.

Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as animal tracks. Employee/contractor acknowledges and understands that excavation or removal of paleontological material is prohibited by law and constitutes a misdemeanor under California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5.” A copy of the training materials and documentation of completed training shall be provided to the County for review upon request.

If a paleontological resource is encountered during implementation of the revised reclamation plan, the Operator shall notify the County and all activity within 100 feet of the find shall halt until it can be evaluated by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall evaluate the resource and determine its significance. If significant, the paleontologist shall notify the County and the Operator, in consultation with the County and the paleontologist, shall prepare a treatment plan such that the fossil would be recovered and scientific information preserved. The paleontologist shall implement the treatment plan in consultation with the County and Operator prior to allowing work in the 100-foot radius to resume.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact 4.5-1: Gas Emissions Generated By Reclamation
Activities Could Have a Significant Impact on Global
Climate Change
PS Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Idling Times
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure CCR Title 13, Section 2485). Clear LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-24
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. [Measure applies to idling times for all equipment other than diesel‐powered equipment].

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b: Idling Times for Diesel-powered Equipment Minimize the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to two minutes. [Measure applies to idling times for diesel-powered equipment only].

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1c: Equipment Maintenance
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1d: Alternative Fuel Plan
Prior to construction, develop a plan demonstrating that alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment will represent at least 15 percent of the construction fleet if commercially available.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1e: Local Building Materials
Use at least 10 percent local building materials in construction (e.g., construction aggregates, concrete pipe).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1f: Recycle or Reuse Construction and Demolition Materials
Recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials (e.g., during decommissioning and removal of processing plant facilities).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1g: Generator Alternative Fuel
Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power, as feasible for each construction site.

Impact 4.5-2: Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans,
Policies, or Regulations.

LTS None required. LTS

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 4.6-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements or Substantial Degradation of
Surface Water or Groundwater Quality
PS Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Compliance with General Permit Requirements Compliance with requirements set forth in applicable NPDES and SWPPP.

The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall comply with the LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-25
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
requirements set forth in any applicable NPDES program or SWPPP requirements, including, but not limited to, submitting a Notice of Intent prior to the start of activities under the Construction General Permit, updating the existing SWPPP as required by the Industrial General Permit based on changes to site conditions, and implementing typical BMPs for the protection of water quality.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: RWQCB Discharge Approvals
The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator) shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to discharging any pit lake water. The report shall include information on the estimated characteristics of the quarry pit lake water quality as described in the “Quarry Lake Water Quality and Aquatic Life Criteria” Technical Memorandum, prepared by EMKO Environmental, Inc., July 2, 2021. The Operator shall implement any WDRs issued by the RWQCB in response to the Report of Waste Discharge. The Operator shall inform the County that a Report of Waste Discharge has been submitted, and shall provide the County with evidence of NPDES coverage and WDR compliance prior to any off-site discharge and at any time thereafter upon County request.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: Funding Mechanism
Within 30-days after the effective date of this permit, the Operator shall submit for review and approval by the Director of Conservation and Development, or designee, (“Director”) a proposed funding mechanism (e.g., a bond) and cost basis to secure costs related to the required post-reclamation activities. The funding mechanism shall be in a form and an amount reasonably acceptable to the Director and shall be sufficient to cover costs associated with those post-reclamation activities described in Table 1 below, including the activities required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-7. The funding mechanism shall be held by the County, or held and managed by a third party approved by the Operator and County, as determined by the Director. On the fifth anniversary of this permit’s effective date, and at five-year intervals thereafter, the Operator shall submit an updated post-reclamation activity funding mechanism and cost basis to the Director for review and approval.

The updated cost basis must be calculated to account for inflation and

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-26
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
updated materials, construction, and maintenance costs, sufficient for the Director to determine whether the funded amount sufficiently secures anticipated costs related to the required post-reclamation activities. The Operator shall submit a Condition of Compliance review application (or equivalent) and associated deposit with each 5-year review to cover County time and material costs related to the Director’s review of the updated funding mechanism and cost basis.

Table 1
Clayton Quarry Lake Drainage Post‐Reclamation Inspection and Maintenance Activities
Item Description Implementation Timing
Inspection Items
1 Quarry pit drainage outlet
structure, including:
a. Condition of concrete
bulkhead (e.g., spalling,
exposed reinforcing,
cracks, joint openings)
b. Condition of steel plate
(e.g., abrasion, rust)
c. Condition of debris
screen (e.g., abrasion,
rust, connection to steel
plate)
Annual inspection
2 24‐inch HDPE drainage pipe
(culvert), including:
a. Condition of pipe at
inlet
b. Condition of pipe at
manholes (2)
c. Condition of pipe
connection at Mitchell
Canyon Rd.

Annual inspection

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-27
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
3 Rip‐rap mound above
drainage outlet (e.g., scour,
undermining, washout, or
other damage)
Annual inspection
4 Quarry lake perimeter fencing Annual inspection
Maintenance Items
5 Repairs to quarry pit
drainage outlet structure
(e.g., concrete facing and
reinforcement)
Deficiencies to be addressed prior
to next inspection; immediate
repair if structural integrity of
drainage outlet is in jeopardy
6 Clean‐out of 24‐inch
HDPE drainage pipe
(culvert)
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; clean
out sediment and debris prior
to onset of rainy season, if
needed
7 Maintenance of rip‐rap
mound (e.g., clean‐out of
sediment and debris and
replacement of rip‐ rap
rock)
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; clean
out sediment and debris and
re‐establish rip‐rap protection
prior to onset of rainy season,
if needed
8 Repair damaged quarry lake
perimeter fencing
Deficiencies to be addressed
prior to next inspection; repair
wire mesh and barbed wire, if
needed
Impact 4.6-2: Substantially Decrease Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge such that the Project May Impede Sustainable Groundwater
Management of the Basin
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-3: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a Manner Which Would Result in Erosion or Siltation Within Areas That Drain to the Northern Watershed
LTS None required. LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-28
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
Impact 4.6-4: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in Erosion or Siltation within the Quarry, Mitchell Creek, and Transitional Watershed Areas PS Mitigation Measure 4.6-4a: Incorporate Haul Road Erosion Control Measures
Incorporate erosion control measures into the revised reclamation plan consistent with recommendations of the “Runoff from East Rim Access and Upper Quarry Haul Roads” Memorandum, prepared by EMKO
Environmental, Inc., April 18, 2017. The memorandum shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. Erosion control measures include, but are not limited to the installation of drainage controls such as cross slopes and rock-lined ditches along the portion of east rim haul road located in the Knoxville formation.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4b: Incorporate Quarry Pit and Overburden Fill Area Erosion Control Measures
Incorporate erosion control measures into the revised reclamation plan consistent with recommendations of the “Geotechnical Evaluations for Revised Reclamation Plan, Clayton Quarry, Clayton, California” Report, prepared by Golder Associates, May 2017. The geotechnical evaluation shall be appended to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. These erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, the placement of rip-rap and vegetation along the quarry pit lake shore, as well as the following measures to be implemented within the overburden fill areas:
• 2.5H:1V or flatter slopes with wheel and track rolling compactive effort;
• Slope heights under 50 feet vertical, unless interim benches are used for drainage control;
• Use of “J‐ditches” or functional equivalent where beneficial to direct drainage horizontally across fill areas to designated drainage channels;
• Fill slopes revegetated with appropriate erosion control seed mix; and
LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-29
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
• Erosion control fabric, wattles and other BMPs implemented as needed to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.

Impact 4.6-5: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in On-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm Drainage System
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-6: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result in Off-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm Drainage System
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-7: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a manner which would result Uncontrolled Discharges from
the Quarry Pit Lake and Thereby result in On- Or Off-Site Flooding or Exceed the Capacity of the Existing Storm
Drainage System
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1c (see Impact 4.6- 1).

Mitigation Measure 4.6-7: Quarry Pit Lake Outlet Structure and Pipeline Maintenance
Following the construction of the quarry pit lake outlet structure and drainage pipeline, the operator of the Clayton Quarry shall retain a qualified professional engineer approved by the County to conduct inspection and asneeded repair of the drainage pipeline annually, in the late summer/early fall, and after any earthquake in Contra Costa County that generates strong (modified Mercalli Intensity VI) or greater ground shaking. Reports documenting inspection findings and any repair completed shall be submitted to the County after each inspection.

LTS
Impact 4.6-8: Substantially Alter Drainage Patterns in a Manner Which Would Impede or Redirect Flood Flows
NI None required. NI
Impact 4.6-9: Release of Pollutants in Flood Hazard,
Tsunami, or Seiche Zones Due to Project Inundation
LTS None required. LTS
Impact 4.6-10: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a and 4.6-1b (see Impact 4.6-1).

LTS

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.7-1: Physically Divide an Established Community NI None required. NI Impact 4.7-2: Conflict with Land Use Plans, Policies, and Regulations
LTS None required. LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-30
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
NOISE
Impact 4.8-1: Generation of a Substantial Temporary or
Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Vicinity of The Project Site in Excess of Standards Established in the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable
Standards of Other Agencies
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 (see Impact 4.1- 4).

Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: Noise Reduction During Removal of Processing Plant and Support Structures
To reduce potential construction-equipment reclamation-related noise impacts associated with the removal of processing plant and support structures on the project site, the following multi-part mitigation measure shall be implemented during the removal of the processing plant and support structures:
• The operator of the Clayton Quarry (Operator), employees, and the demolition contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment are equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The demolition contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. In addition, the construction contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
• The demolition contractor shall locate, to the maximum extent practical, on-site equipment in staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noisesensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The demolition contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
• An on-site complaint and enforcement manager (manager) shall be available to respond to and track noise complaints. The telephone number of the manager shall be posted at the entrance to the quarry site. The manager shall be trained to use a sound level meter and should be available during all construction hours to respond to noise complaints. The manager shall be responsible for responding to any noise complaints regarding construction noise and for coordinating with the adjacent land uses. The manager will determine the cause of any complaints and coordinate with the demolition team to LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT EIR Executive Summary
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; PS = Potentially Significant; S = Significant; SU = Significant and Unavoidable February | 2022 ES-31
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Significance
After
Mitigation1
implement effective measures (considered technically and economically feasible, such as noise curtains, temporary sound walls, berms, etc.) to correct the problem. The complaints and noise reduction measures shall be documented and provided to the County upon request.
• At least one week prior to commencement of the removal of the processing plant and supporting structures, the Operator shall prepare a notice that the demolition work will commence. The notice shall be posted at the site and mailed to all the owners and occupants of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. The notice shall include the telephone number of the complaint and enforcement manager. A copy of the notice shall be mailed to Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development.
• This mitigation measure 4.8-1 only applies to reclamation activities, not to operational activities.

Impact 4.8-2: Generate Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise from Reclamation Activities
LTS None required. LTS

OTHER CEQA TOPICS
Impact 7-1: Substantially Degrade the Quality of the
Environment, Reduce Habitat of a Fish or Wildlife Species, cause a Fish or Wildlife Population to Drop Below SelfSustaining Levels, Threaten to Eliminate a Plant or Animal Community, Substantially Reduce the Number or Restrict
the Range of a Rare or Endangered Plant or Animal or
Eliminate Important Examples of the Major Periods of
California History or Prehistory
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a, 4.3-1b, 4.3-1c,

4.3-1d, 4.3-1e, 4.3-1f, 4.3-1g, 4.3-1h, 4.3-1i, 4.3-1j, 4.3-1k, 4.3-1l, 4.3-3, 4.3-6a, 4.3- 6b, 4.3-6c, 4.3-6d, 4.3-6e, 4.3-6f, 4.3-6g, 4.3-6h, and 4.3-6i (see Section 4.3), CUL1, and CUL-2 (see Appendix A-4).

LTS
Impact 7-2: Impacts that are Individually Limited but
Cumulatively Considerable
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1a, 4.5-1b, 4.5-1c,

4.5-1d, 4.5-1e, 4.5-1f, and 4.5-1g
LTS
Impact 7-3: Environmental Effects which will Cause
Substantial Adverse Effects on Human Beings
PS Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation Measures 4.1-4, 4.4-4, 4.5-1a,

4.5-1b, 4.5-1c, 4.5-1d, 4.5-1e, 4.5-1f, 4.5-1g, 4.6-1a, 4.6-1b, 4.6-1c, 4.6-4a, 4.6-4b,

4.6-7, 4.8-1.

LTS

CLAYTON QUARRY RECLAMATION PLAN AMENDMENT
Executive Summary DRAFT EIR
ES-32 February | 2022

THIS PAGE

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

Department of
Conservation and
Development
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Phone:1-855-323-2626
February 16, 2022
Contra
Costa
County
John Kopchik
Director
Aruna Bhat
Deputy Director
Jason Crapo
Deputy Director
Maureen Toms
Deputy Director
Amalia Cunningham
Assistant Deputy Director

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse #2020020323
County File #’s CDLP15-02030/31
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970” as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Division of the Department of Conservation and Development of Contra Costa County has prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the following project:

PROJECT TITLE: CEMEX Clayton Quarry Reclamation Plan Amendment APPLICANT: CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC
Attn: Steve Grace, Ph. (831) 970-9559
2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 120
Folsom, CA 95630
LOCATION: The project site is located at 515 Mitchell Canyon Road, Clayton, CA 94517.

This location is with unincorporated Contra Costa County. The project site and immediate unincorporated County lands are surrounded to the east by the Town of Clayton and City of Concord to the north. (Assessor Parcel No.: 122-020-013 and 122-020-007) (Zoning: A-2 General Agricultural District, A-2) PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The applicant is requesting approval of two land use permits (County File #’s LP15-2030 and 2031) for the purposes of amending its reclamation plan and corresponding operations, which includes the following components:
• Reclamation over an anticipated period of 47 years to a post-mining land use of open space; • Reduction of the surface mining disturbance footprint relative to the existing reclamation plan that leaves the east rim of the quarry intact, providing visual buffer between the quarry and view sheds to the east;

• Permanent overburden fill areas;
• Final grading contours reflecting a maximum depth of excavation at elevation 110 feet above mean sea level (msl) with finish slope angles that achieve adequate factors of safety; • A final drainage plan that provides for the quarry pit to slowly fill with stormwater following reclamation to form a quarry lake with a controlled outflow that conveys stormwater to natural drainage courses and man-made drainage facilities;
• Removal of facilities, structures and equipment associated with mining; • Revegetation of the quarry east rim, overburden fill areas, and processing plant site to a combination of chaparral and grassland habitats that feature California native seed mixes; • Elimination of requirements to backfill, grade, and compact the quarry floor and benches, given that the planned open space end use would provide for a future quarry lake; • Clarification of pre-Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) (1976) disturbance areas, including any areas disturbed outside the boundaries of the approved reclamation plan; • Removal of 79 out of 123 existing trees, to be replaced with 400 foothill pine trees that would form a tree screen along the quarry east rim;
• Compliance with current State reclamation standards to be achieved during reclamation; and • An exception request to Division 914 of the Contra Costa Code of Ordinances (Offsite Collect and Convey requirement).

In addition, and in response to stakeholder input, CEMX has incorporated into the project a new screening berm (between the existing processing plant site and residential communities to the north).

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT:

Pursuant to Article 9 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR describes the proposed Project; identifies, analyzes, and evaluates the environmental impacts which may result from the proposed Project; and identifies measures to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The mitigations identified in this document and designed for the proposed Project ensure that the Project will not cause a significant impact on the environment. The Draft EIR for the proposed Project identified potentially significant impacts in the environmental topics of aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology & soils, GHG emissions, hydrology/water quality, and noise. Environmental analysis determined that measures were available to mitigate potential adverse impacts to less-than-significant levels. As a result of the above, a Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

WHERE TO REVIEW THE DRAFT EIR:

The Draft EIR can be viewed online at the following link: (https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/7605/MajorPlanning-Applications-Under-Consid). Any sources of information referenced in the Draft EIR can be provided upon request by contacting the project planner.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:

Prior to adoption of the Draft EIR, the County will be accepting comments on the adequacy of the document during a 45-day public comment period; the Draft EIR may be certified at a future date in a public hearing following the public comment period. The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental document will begin on Friday, February 18, 2022 and extends to Monday, April 4, 2022, until 5:00 P.M. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address:

Francisco Avila, Principal Planner
Community Development Division
Contra Costa County, Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
OR emailed to [email protected]
Sincerely,
Francisco Avila
Francisco Avila
Principal Planner
(925)655-2866
[email protected]
cc: County Clerk’s Office (2 copies)
Adjacent Occupants and Property Owners Notification
List
attach: Vicinity Map

VICINITY MAP
LEGEND

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA

CEMEX CLAYTON QUARRY
1 CEMEX CLAYTON QUARRY
DRAFT
GHAD Agenda Item: 3(a)
______________________________________________________________________________________ GHAD Minutes December 7, 2021 Page 1

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING

OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT (GHAD)
December 7, 2021

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – the meeting was called to order at 8:21 p.m. by Chair Tillman. Board Members present: Chair Tillman, Vice Chair Cloven, Board Members Diaz, Wan, and Wolfe. Board Members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Reina Schwartz, Legal Counsel Mala Subramanian, and Secretary Janet Calderon.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS – None.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Board Member Wolfe, seconded by Vice Chair Cloven, to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. (Passed; 5-0 vote).
(a) Approve the Board of Directors’ minutes for its regular meeting August 3, 2021. (Secretary)

4. ANNUAL REORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(a) Nominations and election of Chair (Chair Tillman to conduct the election) Chairman Tillman opened the floor to nominations for Chair in 2022.

Board Member Wolfe nominated Holly Tillman for the office of Chairperson. Chairperson Tillman declined. Chairperson Tillman nominated Board Member Diaz. No other nominations were received.

Chairman Tillman called for the vote to elect Jim Diaz as GHAD Chairperson. (Passed; 5-0 vote).
(b) Nominations and election of Vice Chair (New Chair to conduct the election).

Chairperson Diaz opened the floor to nominations for Vice Chair in 2022.

Board Member Wolfe nominated Holly Tillman for the office of Vice Chair.

Board Member Tillman declined. Board Member Tillman nominated Board Member Wolfe. No other nominations were received.

Chairperson Diaz called for the vote to elect Carl Wolfe as GHAD Vice Chair. (Passed; 5-0 vote).

GHAD Agenda Item: 3(a)
______________________________________________________________________________________ GHAD Minutes December 7, 2021 Page 2

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None.

6. ACTION ITEMS – None.

7. BOARD ITEMS – limited to requests and directives for future meetings.

6. BOARD ITEMS
Boardmember Wan requested the City’s website should include the City Engineers scheduled work, including completion dates, and specify areas of responsible in the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District.

7. ADJOURNMENT - on call by Chairperson Diaz the Board meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
# # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Janet Calderon, Secretary
Approved by the Board of Directors
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District
________________________________
Jim Diaz, Chairperson
GHAD Agenda Item: 5(a)

GHAD REPORT
TO: HONORABLE DISTRICT DIRECTORS
FROM: REINA J. SCHWARTZ, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 15, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR CM THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023 WITH UP TO

FOUR ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS FOR ASSSESSMENT DISTRICT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND APPOINTING LARRY THEIS, PE AS

GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD

ABATEMENT DISTRICT
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Resolution, approve a Professional Services Agreement with Anchor CM for assessment district management services for an initial term of March 15, 2022 through June 30, 2023 with up to four one-year extensions authorized by mutual agreement of the parties, authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement and appoint Larry Theis, PE as the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) General Manager.

BACKGROUND
Since August 2017, the City has contracted with the firm Harris & Associates, Inc. for professional engineering services including serving as the Oakhurst GHAD General Manager.

The current amendment to the agreement with Harris & Associates expires on March 31, 2022. Given changes in staffing at Harris that have limited the ability of Harris to adequately support Clayton for assessment district management, in January 2022, the City issued a Request for Qualifications for a new firm to serve as City Engineer and General Manager of the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD).

DISCUSSION
A total of five firms submitted proposals to serve as City Engineer and Oakhurst GHAD General Manager. The firms that submitted were: Kennedy & Associates, Coastland, Freyer & Laureta, SNG & Associates, Inc., and Anchor CM.

The proposals were reviewed by internal staff as well as by an outside engineering expert.

The top two ranked firms, Kennedy & Associates and Anchor CM were interviewed by the Subject: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton approving a professional services agreement with Anchor CM for assessment district management services, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement and Appointing Larry Theis, PE as General Manager for the Oakhurst GHAD Date: March 15, 2022

City Manager and Assistant to the City Manager. Based on the completeness of their proposal, the technical breadth and depth of their team and their familiarity with engineering and public works within Contra Costa County, the top firm was determined to be Anchor CM.

Anchor’s proposal is attached to this report.

The principal with Anchor CM who will serve as the General Manager for the Oakhurst GHAD is Larry Theis, PE, who was most recently the Public Works Director and previously the City Engineer for the City of Orinda, prior to joining Anchor CM. In addition to Mr. Theis and staff at Anchor CM, the firm has also partnered with a number of other firms to bring further expertise to the table including CSG (development review); Advanced Mobility Group (traffic and transportation); BSK Associates (geotechnical, inspection and materials testing); and Francisco & Associates (assessment districts).

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Under the current agreement with Harris & Associates, the City pays on an hourly basis for all of the services required related to assessment district management including the work of the named General Manager. The cost per month of the services varies as do the funding sources.

The proposed fees for the Anchor CM agreement are very similar to that in place currently with Harris. For example, the current rate for the City Engineer/General Manager through Harris is $267/hour; the proposed hourly rate for the new City Engineer/General Manager is $239/hour. Rates for other services and specialties are also similar. Overall, it is anticipated that the new agreement will result in costs similar to the current agreement so no budget adjustment is requested for the current fiscal year. When the FY2022/23 Budget is introduced, any adjustments in overall budgeted amounts for Engineering will be brought forward.

Attachment:1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Professional Services Agreement with Anchor CM Attachment 3: Clayton RFP for City Engineering and Oakhurst GHAD Services Attachment 4: Proposal from Anchor CM
Attachment 1
GHAD Resolution ##-2022 General Manager Anchor CM March 15, 2022 GHAD RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPROVING

A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR CM FOR
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MANAGEMENT SERVICES THROUGH JUNE 30, 2023

WITH UP TO FOUR ONE-YEAR RENEWALS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND APPOINTING LARRY THEIS, PE AS

GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE OAKHURST GEOLOGICAL HAZARD ABATEMENT

DISTRICT

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District
Clayton, California
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton has contracted since 2017 with the firm Harris & Associates for city engineering services including a designated General Manager for the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD);
WHEREAS, the current agreement with Harris & Associates expires March 31, 2022; WHEREAS, changes in staffing have limited the ability of Harris & Associates to adequately support the City of Clayton;
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton issued a Request for Proposals in January 2022 for city engineering services including serving as GHAD General Manager; WHEREAS, the City received a total of five proposals which were evaluated and ranked and then the top two firms were interviewed; and
WHEREAS, the top-ranked firm was Anchor CM based on the completeness of their proposal, the technical breadth and depth of their team and their familiarity with engineering and public works in Contra Costa County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District does hereby:

1. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Anchor CM for assessment district management services including serving as General Manager for the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District for the period of March 15, 2022 through June 30, 2023 with up to four one-year extensions authorized by mutual agreement of the parties;

2. Appoint Larry Theis, PE as the Oakhurst GHAD General Manager; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 15th day of March, 2022, by the following vote:

Attachment 1
GHAD Resolution ##-2022 General Manager Anchor CM March 15, 2022 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
_
Jim Diaz, Chairperson
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, Secretary
1 CITY OF CLAYTON

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of March 15, 2022 by and between the City of Clayton, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California 94517 (“City”), and Anchor CM, a California S-Corporation with its principal place of business at 3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 345, Lafayette, CA, 94549 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services related to City engineering and assessment district services (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B”, Consultant’s Proposal, as modified to reflect an initial monthly retainer of $12,000, to be evaluated periodically. b. The Schedule of Charges may be adjusted by mutual agreement of the City and the Consultant once annually after the first term of the agreement (through June 30, 2023).

The rates shall be adjusted by the CPI-U San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, April to April. In no case shall the adjustment be less than 3% annually or more than 5% annually. c. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed including work completed and hours of services rendered by Consultant. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.
2 3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Time of Performance.

Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”). The initial term of this Agreement is March 15, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The Agreement may be extended by written amendment and mutual agreement of the parties.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.
3 8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Consultant
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or equivalent.
(iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract 4 (8) Broad Form Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period 5 required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include limited contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
6 g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
7 i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor the City Council, nor any member of the City Council, nor any of the officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. To the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s obligations under the above indemnity shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, but shall not otherwise be reduced. If Consultant’s obligations to defend, indemnify, 8 and/or hold harmless arise out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional services” (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication that liability under a claim is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful misconduct of the City, Consultant’s obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.
9 14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign Larry Theis, PE as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City. 10 20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Attn: Reina J. Schwartz
CONSULTANT:

Anchor CM
3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 345
Lafayette, CA 94549
Attn: Larry Theis, PE
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not 11 render the provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

31. Disputes
In the event of any dispute between the Parties related to this Agreement, the Parties agree to first negotiate in good faith toward a resolution with participation by representatives of each Party holding sufficient authority to resolve the dispute. If such dispute cannot be resolved in this manner, before any action or litigation is initiated other than as required to secure lien rights, and upon mutual agreement of the parties, the dispute shall be submitted to mediation using the American Arbitration Association or another mediator as mutually selected by the Parties. Such mediation shall be completed within a reasonable period of time following either Party’s written demand with each Party to bear an equal share of the mediation fees and its own respective attorney and consultant fees and costs.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
12 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAYTON

AND ANCHOR CM
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF CLAYTON Anchor CM
By: By:

Reina J. Schwartz Its:

City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
Larry Theis, PRESIDENT
13 EXHIBIT A

1. City Engineering Services
The role of the City Engineering includes the administration of engineering related processes and procedures. These duties include:
• Assist in CIP scoping, prioritization, and budgeting
• Representation as City Engineer at internal and agency meetings • Approval of permits and waivers
• Availability to the public and private developers to handle matters dealing with the engineering functions of City government
• Coordination with other agencies for the review of plans, projects and studies • Assistance in the solicitation of proposals for CIP design work • Assistance in the procurement of contractors and vendors for public works construction.

The City Engineer will also address failed infrastructure for immediate safety concerns and coordinate preliminary opinion on repair approach as well as coordinate with Maintenance staff on the maintenance, operations, and repair of public facilities.

City Engineer should be familiar with:
• Various regional, state and federal transportation funding entities and the application process, fund/project management and reporting requirements for those entities.
• The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional permit (MRP) 2.0 and the upcoming MRP 3.0, including annual report preparation and submittal.
• Contra Costa Clean Water Program and applicable C-3 Guidebook.

2. General Engineering Services (Non-General Fund Capital Projects) The firm is to provide access to specialized technical staff ready to perform studies, designs, project and construction management on any tasks or projects the City identifies.

These efforts include the preparation of site evaluations, planning and preliminary engineering reports, plans and specifications for CIP construction projects, along with detailed schedules and cost estimates. This work would also include any necessary field work, drafting, design, surveying, environmental documents, bid assistance, construction management & inspection, and project management – as well as the preparation of specialized engineering studies on a variety of subjects including, but not limited to drainage studies, traffic studies, and pavement evaluations.

3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
14 The firm is to provide staffing to represent the City and interact with the public in processing the City’s public permit applications. This work includes plan check for civil engineering design plans which includes, but is not limited to street, sewer, water, stormwater, recycled water, green infrastructure, storm drain, fiber optic, grading, erosion control, signing & striping, street lighting, traffic signal and all related engineering studies, including hydrology and hydraulics, soils, water and sewer studies and structural analyses. It should be noted that water service for the City of Clayton is provided by Contra Costa Water District. Sewer service is provided by the City of Concord including maintenance, plan review and sewer capital projects.

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services
i. The City currently has seven (7) districts (listed below) that require the services listed below for annual administration and assessment levies. It should be noted that some of the districts have restrictions on the amount of funding that can be spent on administration of the district.

District Name Type of District
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District
(1,484 parcels)
Geological Hazard Abatement District,
Public Resources Code, Sec 26500 et seq
Streetlight Assessment District (3,482) 1919 Act Streetlight District High Street Bridge Assessment District (5) Permanent Road Division Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District (16) 1913 Act
Oak Street Bridge Assessment District (9) Permanent Road Division Oak Street Sewer Assessment District (10) 1913 Act District Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District (24) 1972 Act, 1982 Act District A. Research - Obtain all available information from the City regarding the districts, including the current assessment data files, electronic map files, listing of projected expenditures and revenues and any additional information that is available. Update the current assessment data files with the latest Assessor’s parcel number and land use code information if needed.

B. Meetings and Coordination - Meet with City staff to review the districts, receive budgets and confirm schedule, conduct one status meeting in conjunction with the draft Engineer’s Reports and one for the final Engineer’s Report, if required, attend the City Council meetings considering the Resolutions of Intention and the public hearings, and provide technical 15 support and answer questions. At the public hearing provide a presentation to present at the public hearing. Total of up to 8 (eight) meetings.

C. Estimated Budgets - Review budgets for the upcoming fiscal year by establishing projected costs based on prior year estimates and actual/projected changes in costs and improvements. Review debt service schedule for the assessment districts and ensure the current year levy follows the debt service schedule for each assessment district.

D. Engineer’s Reports - Prepare the Engineer’s Reports setting the annual assessment rates for the next fiscal year based on budget estimates from City, and including reduced copies of the updated Assessment Diagrams, if revised. The Engineer’s Reports will also incorporate any new annexations into the districts during the previous year. Provide copies of the draft Reports for review and comment. Provide a PDF copy and up to 4 (4) bound copies of the finalized Reports and up to (2) bound copies of the Preliminary Assessment Rolls for processing and filing.

E. Diablo Estates BAD Noticing and Mailing - Provide to the City packets including a notice of the public hearing with a copy of the draft Engineer’s Report, to be mailed to the owner of record for each property within the Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District. This packet shall be in a mailing envelop with the appropriate mailing label with a Assessor parcel number, owner name and mailing address, ready to have postage applied and mailed by the City.
ii. Submittal to Contra Costa County - After confirmation of assessments, prepare an Assessment Roll in electronic format, as required by the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion of assessments on the property tax bills.

Submit the roll for each district to Contra Costa County and, after receipt of the County’s exception report, make any required corrections. Deliver a copy of the electronic files for each district to City staff. iii. Formation/Annexation Services
The City may require the following services for any additional development that may occur within the City limits. The following tasks would be required for any Formation or Annexation. The City will require a detailed proposal for each formation or annexation taking into account the tasks listed below:

A. Kick-off Meeting - Meeting with City staff and property owner representative (if appropriate) to discuss the scope of the work, the proposed project schedule, the mechanisms and/or liaisons for obtaining the necessary information for the analysis (such as improvement plans, proposed land use designations, Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information, etc.) any properties that may have special needs, considerations or exemptions, and other information regarding the proposed improvements and properties. 16 B. Research - Gather support data, proposed development plans, proposed zoning information, preliminary improvement plans, cost estimates for all construction and maintenance components, locations of the proposed public improvements to be maintained, and any other pertinent information relating to the proposed improvements. A database will need to be compiled based on the Assessor’s Roll and Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information for the properties within the Development Area, including property size, land use data and property ownership.

C. Coordination - Coordinate with City staff, property owners, legal counsel, and other project consultants via conference call, email, or in person.

Participate in meetings with City staff, and the project team as requested.

D. CFD: Rate & Method of Apportionment - Review construction cost estimates including direct and indirect costs. Develop a special tax revenue model based on the proposed development product mix. Prepare preliminary special tax rate calculations based on the above analysis.

Determine the special tax allocation methodology and formula to be applied in accordance with the Act. Apportion the costs of facilities in the form of special taxes to be levied upon the parcels of land within the CFD using the special tax methodologies determined above. Prepare the Rate and Method of Apportionment for attachment to the Resolution of Intention. Review comments with City staff, the project team and property owners and finalize based on comments received
E. LLMD: Engineer’s Report - Prepare a preliminary & final Engineer’s Report which contains all items as required by the Code, including the 1972 Act, Proposition 218, and relevant case law, including a description of the proposed improvements/ services, an engineer’s estimate of the construction costs/ service costs and incidental expenses, a description of the assessment methodology, boundary map/assessment diagram and the assessment roll.

F. CFD: Proposed Boundary Map - Prepare the proposed Boundary Map for recordation pursuant to the Mello‐Roos Act and the County Recorder’s Office. The ability to provide a reduced copy of the Boundary Map for inclusion in reports.

G. CFD: Community Facilities District Report - Prepare a draft CFD Report to reflect final estimated cost of facilities. In summary the report should include:
• Description of the CFD (including the Proposed Boundary Map) • Description of Facilities and Services
• Cost Estimates
• Rate and Method of Apportionment
• A list of Property Owners
17 H. Review comments with City staff and financing team and finalize based on comments received. Provide a final PDF copy of the CFD Report I. City Council Meetings - Attend City Council meeting for Resolution of Intention & Public Hearing and election.

J. CFD: Notice of Special Tax Lien - Prepare the required the Notice of Special Tax Liens and record after district formation
K. Bond Issuance - As needed, provide Special Tax Tables including the overlapping debt tables and up to five (5) special tax tables for the preliminary official statement, as required by the Bond Counsel and/or Disclosure Counsel. Certificate of the Special Tax Consultant - Review and execute the certificate of the special tax consultant, as provided by the Bond Counsel.

L. Annexations - All applicable services listed above or as amended as needed.
18 EXHIBIT B
CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL
1 CITY OF CLAYTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Professional Engineering And Assessment District Services Release Date: January 21, 2022
Closing Date: February 14, 2022
Contact Person: Reina Schwartz, City Manager
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
(925) 673-7343
[email protected]
All proposals to be received by 5:00 p.m. PST on February 14, 2022 by email as listed above.

The City will not be responsible for late or lost proposals or accept proposals that fail to be delivered to the specified email address by the specified date and time. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SERVICES INTENT
It is the intent of these specifications, terms and conditions to seek proposals for the City of Clayton’s Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services. References to “City” shall mean the City of Clayton. The City reserves the right to award any combination of services or reject all Proposals.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Clayton is seeking a firm to provide Professional Engineering Services for (1) City Engineering Services, (2) General Engineering Services (non-General Fund CIPs), (3) Land Development Review & Permitting Services, and Annual Administration/ Assessments Levy Services as described in Exhibit A.

SCHEDULE
The following schedule details key dates and times related to this RFP. City reserves the right to revise this schedule.

Proposal Timeline (all dates 2022 and subject to change) Date Time Activity
January 21, 2022 By 5:00 PM RFP Issued
January 28, 2022 By 5:00 PM Questions regarding RFP Due to [email protected]
February 4, 2022 By 5:00 PM Addendum Issued/Posted on Purchasing Website by City Staff
(Addendum may include revisions and/or
responses to RFP/ Questions)
February 14, 2022 By 5:00 PM Proposal Due Date
Submittals to:

City of Clayton
[email protected]
February 18, 2022 N/A Top Rated Firms Notified,
Interviews scheduled if needed
February 22-25, 2022 N/A Interviews with Top Rated Consultants if needed February 28-March 7, 2022 N/A Contract Negotiation and Reference Checks March 15, 2022 N/A City Council Approval of Consultant Agreement March 16-31, 2022 N/A Contract Award, Signing, Commence work Contact person for the above RFP: Reina Schwartz
Email: [email protected]
3 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Proposals should be submitted in pdf form via email to the City Manager at:
[email protected].

2. Proposals must be received at the email address listed above no later than 5:00 p.m. PST, February 14, 2022. Late submittals will not be accepted. The City is not responsible for lost proposals or proposals delivered to a person or location other than listed above.

3. All proposals and documents submitted become the property of the City of Clayton.

4. All costs of preparing the proposal shall be borne by the proposer.

5. Proposals shall be honored by proposer for a minmum of sixty (60) days from the date of submission.

PROPOSAL FORMAT
A qualifying proposal must address all of the following in the order shown below:

1. Cover letter
a. Firm/entity name
b. Brief description of the firm/entity
c. Contact person, address, and telephone number
d. Identify any sub-consultants

2. Proposal
a. Firm information including type of organization, location of principal office(s), years in business, number of employees, professional registrations and affiliations, and other pertinent information. There must be at least one registered professional engineer to serve as the named City Engineer.
b. Names and roles of personnel who will provide services to the City c. Resumes of personnel who will provide services to the City d. Response to Scope of Service and planned approach to meet the needs of the City
e. List of similar work completed and the contact information for at least three references
f. Schedule of key dates as proposed herein or as modified by proposer g. Any proposed modifications or objections to the standard City professional services agreement an example of which is attached to the RFP. h. Cost of services
4 GOOD STANDING REQUIREMENTS
Proposing firms, their principals or subcontractors may not be presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency.

Proposing firms required to be registered with the California Secretary of State must be so registered and in good standing at the time of proposal submission and at all times thereafter if selected by the City.

The selected proposer will be required to obtain a City of Clayton business license and keep it current during the period of performance on the contract resulting from this RFP.

Selected Contractor shall, at its own expense, procure and maintain in full force at all times the City’s Insurance Requirements during the term of the PO and/or any applicable contract/agreement.

EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

1. The City will evaluate all proposals received by the deadline, using the following evaluation criteria with scoring on a 100-point scale:

Criteria Points
Experience in similar projects (completed
in the last 5 years)
50 Qualifications of key project personnel 20
References for similar work 15
Cost effectiveness of proposal 15

2. Based on these criteria, it is the City’s intent to select a single successful consultant. If consultants are short-listed, the top-ranked consultants will be interviewed by the City. Upon completion of the interviews, the selection committee will make a final ranking of the consultants. The City Council will then be requested to approve the award of the contract to the top-ranked consultant and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract.

3. The City will exercise its discretion in selecting a consultant that, in the sole judgment of the City, best serves the interest of the City.

4. The City reserves the right to waive minor irregularities in any proposal, to reject any proposal that fails to meet the RFP requirements in any respect, to reject all proposals for any reason, to modify and reissue the RFP, or to cancel the RFP. 5 PROTEST
Any consultant that submitted a proposal may protest another consultant’s proposal by submitting said protest and the reasons before the City Council.

PROPOSALS AS PUBLIC RECORDS
All responses, including the accepted proposal and any subsequent contract, become public records, per the requirements of the California Government Code, Sections 6250 -6270, “California Public Records Act”. Proprietary material must be clearly marked as such.

The City will treat all information submitted in a proposal as available for public inspection once the City has selected a consultant. If you believe that you have a legally justifiable basis under the California Public Records Act (Government Section 6250 et. seq.) for protecting the confidentiality of any information contained within your proposal, you must identify any such information, together with the legal basis of your claim in your proposal, and present such information separately as part of your response package.

SAMPLE CONTRACT
The selected firm will be required to sign an agreement with the City of Clayton substantially similar to that attached hereto as Attachment 1. 6 (This is a SAMPLE only. The actual contract may include and is not limited to all of the terms and conditions specified in this RFP.)

CITY OF CLAYTON

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as ________________, 20____ by and between the City of Clayton, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California 94517 (“City”), and __________ a __________________ with its principal place of business at ___________________________ (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services related to City engineering and assessment district services (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit “B.” b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $ . This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following 7 manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated changes in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by Consultant and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Time of Performance.

Consultant shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner and shall commence performance upon receipt of written notice from the City to proceed (“Notice to Proceed”).

Consultant shall complete the services required hereunder within ____________ The Notice to Proceed shall set forth the date of commencement of work.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the nonperforming party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, Consultant shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of Consultant by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, Consultant is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted 8 professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Consultant
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Contract (8) Broad Form Property Damage
(9) Independent Consultants Coverage
9 (iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) Consultant certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent Consultant has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
10 d. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City and in an amount indicated herein.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend. e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
Prior to execution of the Agreement, the Consultant shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein. Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
11 (i) Consultant shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to non-payment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
(v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
12 (i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor the City Council, nor any member of the City Council, nor any of the officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractors or subconsultants to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section.

Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors or subconsultants shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by Consultant, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors or subconsultants.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.
b. To the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s obligations under the above indemnity shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, but shall not otherwise be reduced. If Consultant’s obligations to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arise out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional services” (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication that liability under a claim is caused by the comparative active negligence or willful 13 misconduct of the City, Consultant’s obligations shall be reduced in proportion to the established comparative liability of the City and shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4. b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.
14 By executing this Agreement, Consultant verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. City Material Requirements.

Consultant is hereby made aware of the City’s requirements regarding materials, as set forth in __________________________, which are deemed to be a part of this Agreement.

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign _________________________ as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.
15 This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
Attn: Reina J. Schwartz
CONSULTANT:
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
16 This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including engineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
17 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAYTON
AND [ ]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF CLAYTON [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT]
By: By:

Reina J. Schwartz Its:

City Manager
ATTEST:

By:

City Clerk
18 EXHIBIT A

1. City Engineering Services
The role of the City Engineering includes the administration of engineering related processes and procedures. These duties include:
• Assist in CIP scoping, prioritization, and budgeting
• Representation as City Engineer at internal and agency meetings • Approval of permits and waivers
• Availability to the public and private developers to handle matters dealing with the engineering functions of City government
• Coordination with other agencies for the review of plans, projects and studies • Assistance in the solicitation of proposals for CIP design work • Assistance in the procurement of contractors and vendors for public works construction.

The City Engineer will also address failed infrastructure for immediate safety concerns and coordinate preliminary opinion on repair approach as well as coordinate with Maintenance staff on the maintenance, operations, and repair of public facilities.

City Engineer should be familiar with:
• Various regional, state and federal transportation funding entities and the application process, fund/project management and reporting requirements for those entities.
• The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Regional permit (MRP) 2.0 and the upcoming MRP 3.0, including annual report preparation and submittal.
• Contra Costa Clean Water Program and applicable C-3 Guidebook.

2. General Engineering Services (Non-General Fund Capital Projects) The firm is to provide access to specialized technical staff ready to perform studies, designs, project and construction management on any tasks or projects the City identifies.

These efforts include the preparation of site evaluations, planning and preliminary engineering reports, plans and specifications for CIP construction projects, along with detailed schedules and cost estimates. This work would also include any necessary field work, drafting, design, surveying, environmental documents, bid assistance, construction management & inspection, and project management – as well as the preparation of specialized engineering studies on a variety of subjects including, but not limited to drainage studies, traffic studies, and pavement evaluations. 19 3. Land Development Review and Permitting Services
The firm is to provide staffing to represent the City and interact with the public in processing the City’s public permit applications. This work includes plan check for civil engineering design plans which includes, but is not limited to street, sewer, water, stormwater, recycled water, green infrastructure, storm drain, fiber optic, grading, erosion control, signing & striping, street lighting, traffic signal and all related engineering studies, including hydrology and hydraulics, soils, water and sewer studies and structural analyses. It should be noted that water service for the City of Clayton is provided by Contra Costa Water District. Sewer service is provided by the City of Concord including maintenance, plan review and sewer capital projects.

4. Annual Administration/Assessments Levy Services
i. The City currently has seven (7) districts (listed below) that require the services listed below for annual administration and assessment levies. It should be noted that some of the districts have restrictions on the amount of funding that can be spent on administration of the district.

District Name Type of District
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District
(1,484 parcels)
Geological Hazard Abatement District,
Public Resources Code, Sec 26500 et seq
Streetlight Assessment District (3,482) 1919 Act Streetlight District High Street Bridge Assessment District (5) Permanent Road Division Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District (16) 1913 Act
Oak Street Bridge Assessment District (9) Permanent Road Division Oak Street Sewer Assessment District (10) 1913 Act District Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District (24) 1972 Act, 1982 Act District A. Research - Obtain all available information from the City regarding the districts, including the current assessment data files, electronic map files, listing of projected expenditures and revenues and any additional information that is available. Update the current assessment data files with the latest Assessor’s parcel number and land use code information if needed.
20 B. Meetings and Coordination - Meet with City staff to review the districts, receive budgets and confirm schedule, conduct one status meeting in conjunction with the draft Engineer’s Reports and one for the final Engineer’s Report, if required, attend the City Council meetings considering the Resolutions of Intention and the public hearings, and provide technical support and answer questions. At the public hearing provide a presentation to present at the public hearing. Total of up to 8 (eight) meetings.

C. Estimated Budgets - Review budgets for the upcoming fiscal year by establishing projected costs based on prior year estimates and actual/projected changes in costs and improvements. Review debt service schedule for the assessment districts and ensure the current year levy follows the debt service schedule for each assessment district.

D. Engineer’s Reports - Prepare the Engineer’s Reports setting the annual assessment rates for the next fiscal year based on budget estimates from City, and including reduced copies of the updated Assessment Diagrams, if revised. The Engineer’s Reports will also incorporate any new annexations into the districts during the previous year. Provide copies of the draft Reports for review and comment. Provide a PDF copy and up to 4 (4) bound copies of the finalized Reports and up to (2) bound copies of the Preliminary Assessment Rolls for processing and filing.

E. Diablo Estates BAD Noticing and Mailing - Provide to the City packets including a notice of the public hearing with a copy of the draft Engineer’s Report, to be mailed to the owner of record for each property within the Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District. This packet shall be in a mailing envelop with the appropriate mailing label with a Assessor parcel number, owner name and mailing address, ready to have postage applied and mailed by the City.
ii. Submittal to Contra Costa County - After confirmation of assessments, prepare an Assessment Roll in electronic format, as required by the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion of assessments on the property tax bills.

Submit the roll for each district to Contra Costa County and, after receipt of the County’s exception report, make any required corrections. Deliver a copy of the electronic files for each district to City staff. iii. Formation/Annexation Services
The City may require the following services for any additional development that may occur within the City limits. The following tasks would be required for any Formation or Annexation. The City will require a detailed proposal for each formation or annexation taking into account the tasks listed below:
21 A. Kick-off Meeting - Meeting with City staff and property owner representative (if appropriate) to discuss the scope of the work, the proposed project schedule, the mechanisms and/or liaisons for obtaining the necessary information for the analysis (such as improvement plans, proposed land use designations, Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information, etc.) any properties that may have special needs, considerations or exemptions, and other information regarding the proposed improvements and properties.

B. Research - Gather support data, proposed development plans, proposed zoning information, preliminary improvement plans, cost estimates for all construction and maintenance components, locations of the proposed public improvements to be maintained, and any other pertinent information relating to the proposed improvements. A database will need to be compiled based on the Assessor’s Roll and Parcel/Tentative Tract Map information for the properties within the Development Area, including property size, land use data and property ownership.

C. Coordination - Coordinate with City staff, property owners, legal counsel, and other project consultants via conference call, email, or in person.

Participate in meetings with City staff, and the project team as requested.

D. CFD: Rate & Method of Apportionment - Review construction cost estimates including direct and indirect costs. Develop a special tax revenue model based on the proposed development product mix. Prepare preliminary special tax rate calculations based on the above analysis.

Determine the special tax allocation methodology and formula to be applied in accordance with the Act. Apportion the costs of facilities in the form of special taxes to be levied upon the parcels of land within the CFD using the special tax methodologies determined above. Prepare the Rate and Method of Apportionment for attachment to the Resolution of Intention. Review comments with City staff, the project team and property owners and finalize based on comments received
E. LLMD: Engineer’s Report - Prepare a preliminary & final Engineer’s Report which contains all items as required by the Code, including the 1972 Act, Proposition 218, and relevant case law, including a description of the proposed improvements/ services, an engineer’s estimate of the construction costs/ service costs and incidental expenses, a description of the assessment methodology, boundary map/assessment diagram and the assessment roll.

F. CFD: Proposed Boundary Map - Prepare the proposed Boundary Map for recordation pursuant to the Mello‐Roos Act and the County Recorder’s Office. The ability to provide a reduced copy of the Boundary Map for inclusion in reports.

G. CFD: Community Facilities District Report - Prepare a draft CFD Report to reflect final estimated cost of facilities. In summary the report should include:
22 • Description of the CFD (including the Proposed Boundary Map) • Description of Facilities and Services
• Cost Estimates
• Rate and Method of Apportionment
• A list of Property Owners
H. Review comments with City staff and financing team and finalize based on comments received. Provide a final PDF copy of the CFD Report I. City Council Meetings - Attend City Council meeting for Resolution of Intention & Public Hearing and election.

J. CFD: Notice of Special Tax Lien - Prepare the required the Notice of Special Tax Liens and record after district formation
K. Bond Issuance - As needed, provide Special Tax Tables including the overlapping debt tables and up to five (5) special tax tables for the preliminary official statement, as required by the Bond Counsel and/or Disclosure Counsel. Certificate of the Special Tax Consultant - Review and execute the certificate of the special tax consultant, as provided by the Bond Counsel.

L. Annexations - All applicable services listed above or as amended as needed.
23 EXHIBIT B
Proposals should provide a complete proposal for costs including any monthly minimums, hourly rates or other charges. Pricing should be provided for each of the types of services listed in Exhibit A:
• City Engineering,
• General Engineering,
• Land Development Review & Permitting, and
• Assessment District Administration/Levies.

PROPOSAL FOR:

Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City of Clayton
Professional Engineering Services
February 14, 2022
City of Clayton – Proposal for Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services City Engineering Staff Augmentation
P22‐06 ANCHORCM
February 14, 2022 Representing the Public Since 2003
Table of Contents
Section 1 Cover Letter 1
Section 2 Proposal
Section 2a Firm Information 3
Section 2b Names and Roles of Personnel 5
Section 2c Resumes of Personnel 8
Section 2d Scope of Services / Planned Approach 10
Section 2e References 22
Section 2f Schedule of Key Dates 23
Section 2g Modifications or Objections 24
Section 2h Cost of Services 25
Appendix a Resumes of Personnel (continued) 27
Appendix b Cost of Services (continued) 62
Construction and Project Management .Inspection .Staff Augmentation 3685 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Suite 345 Lafayette, CA 94549 .P (925) 385-0950 .F (925) 385-0424 . www.anchorcm.com February 14, 2022
Attn: Reina Schwartz, City Manager
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
RE: PROPOSAL: CITY OF CLAYTON – PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SERVICES Dear City Manager Schwartz,
AnchorCM is pleased to propose our Professional Engineering and Assessment District Services to the City of Clayton (City). We are a full‐service Municipal Engineering and Construction Management firm that has been providing services to public agencies for over 20 years. Our wide range of services include staff augmentation, design review, constructability review, construction management, inspection, permit processing, estimating/scheduling, contract/document administration, and public outreach coordination. We are a minority woman‐owned business with current public agency clients in Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Sacramento, and Santa Clara counties.

Iwill lead ourteam of consultants and be yoursingle point of contact to provide the scope ofservices described in this RFP. I have over 20 years of engineering experience working for public agencies at State, County, and City levels. Up until a few months ago, I was the City of Orinda (Orinda) Director of Public Works and Engineering Services as well as their Assistant City Manager. If selected, the City would gain the benefits of a current and experienced City Engineer/Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager with specific experience in Contra Costa County. In many ways, I still approach issues more like a public agency civil servant than a consultant. I believe that is the biggest differentiation between our team compared to other consultants. I understand other considerations that are often asked of public agency staff. In addition, with most of my 20 years of professional experience spent working in Contra Costa County, I have established professional relationships with staff at nearby agencies as well as funding agencies, I would be able to represent the City well in regional planning and coordination efforts.

Clayton and Orinda are quite similar in many aspects. Both agencies are relatively small with similar challenges but still strive to provide excellent services to their residents. The municipal engineering duties and responsibilities are generally the same within each incorporated city. However, Clayton offers a unique opportunity in Contra Costa County where the City Engineering function is performed by an engineering consultant instead of more traditional in‐house staff at Orinda or many other cities. Throughout my professional career as public agency staff, I have established professional relationships with technical consultants in many areas of expertise. AnchorCM will be able to provide City access to these consultants.

Beyond access, I have successfully completed projects with these subconsultants, and we have previously worked well as a team. We are pleased to include as part of our team, CSG Consultants, Inc. (CSG) for land development, City Surveyor, civil design work, and environmental support; Advanced Mobility Group (AMG) for traffic/transportation, BSK Associates (BSK) for geotechnical and material testing, and Francisco & Associates (F&A) for assessment administration. Beyond, these technical subconsultants, AnchorCM can also provide the City access to other consultants as needed. When required, such as for federal grants, AnchorCM can assist the City in issuing Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposal to select project specific technical consultants while still provide the overall management of the projects as the City Engineer.