A G E N D A
CITY OF SEASIDE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR 440 HARCOURT AVE (COUNCIL CHAMBER) AGENCY TO THE Thursday, September 21, 2023
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5:00 PM
___________________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE: The City Council will hold its public meetings in person, with a virtual option for public participation based on availability. The City of Seaside utilizes Zoom tele-conferencing technology for virtual public participation; however, we make no representation or warranty of any kind, regarding the adequacy, reliability, or availability of the use of this platform in this manner. Participation by members of public through this means is at their own risk. ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________
VIRTUAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS
1. To view this meeting: Please click on the following link to the City of Seaside YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofSeasideCalifornia
2. To participate in this meeting: Using the Zoom application on your smart phone, laptop, tablet or desktop and click on this link: https://ci-seaside-ca-us.zoom.us/j/81936832059 WEBINAR ID: 819 3683 2059
3. To participate by phone: Please call (669) 900-9128
Enter the meeting ID 819 3683 2059 when prompted. There is no participate code – press the pound sign # after the recording prompts you.
4. To make public comment, the following options are available:
Before the Meeting via Email: Written comments can be emailed to [email protected] Include the following subject line: “Public Comment Item #___” (insert the agenda item number relevant to your comment). Written comments must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting.
During the Meeting via Oral Comments: When the Chair calls for public comment, attendees can queue to speak with the “Raise Hand” feature. On the Zoom application, click the “Raise Hand” button. On the phone, press *9.
IN PERSON PARTICIPATION INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the public participating in person and wishing to address the City Council may approach the podium when the Chair calls for public comment.
Packet Page 1
City Council REGULAR Meeting September 21, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 2
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL – ESTABLISHMENT OF QUORUM
Ian N. Oglesby
David R. Pacheco
Alexis Garcia-Arrazola
Rita Burks
Alex Miller
Mayor/Chair
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member
Council/Agency Member
3. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. REVIEW OF AGENDA
If there are any items that arose after the 72-hour posting deadline, this is the point in the meeting where a vote may be taken to add the item to the agenda. (A 2/3-majority vote is required).
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City of Seaside, but not on this agenda, may do so during the Public Comment period for up to three (3) minutes. Public Comments for "Presentations" on this agenda are also taken at this time; comments on specific agenda items are heard under that item. For the public record, please state your name.
6. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
This is a time specifically set aside for representatives of public agencies to make brief comments of general interest to the City Council and the community.
7. PRESENTATIONS
A. UPCOMING CITYWIDE EVENTS & COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
(RECREATION DIRECTOR, DAN MEEWIS)
8. CONSENT AGENDA
A. APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of July 15, 2023 through August 25, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits, and wired payments related to the pay period ending July 21, 2023, August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $9,154,000.87.
Packet Page 2
City Council REGULAR Meeting September 21, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 3 B. APPROVE AND FILE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of July 15, 2023 through August 25, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits and wired payments related to the pay period ending July 21, 2023, August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $1,432.73.
C. APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM
CENTRAL COAST HIGH SCHOOL FOR THEIR WORK TO LEARN PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Central Coast High School for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund for the costs associated with their Work to Learn Program.
D. APPROVE A MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST FROM
SEASIDE BLADE RUNNERS BASKETBALL
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a request from Seaside Blade Runners Basketball for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund to help cover the costs for equipment, uniforms, gym expenses, tournaments and transportation.
E. PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER AS CHILDHOOD CANCER
AWARENESS MONTH
RECOMMENDATION: Approve issuing a proclamation to Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services, and declaring September 2023 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in Seaside.
F. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 25 TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2023,
AS STORMWATER AWARENESS WEEK FOR STORMWATER CONTROL
RECOMMENDATION: Approve a proclamation to recognize Stormwater Awareness Week and the efforts of City staff to protect water quality.
G. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF YOSEMITE
STREET, BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE AND MENDOCINO STREET, ON OCTOBER 7, 2023 FOR SEASIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL
COMMUNITY PUBLIC EDUCATION OPEN HOUSE
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution approving closure of Yosemite Street, between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street on October 7, 2023, from 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. for the Fire Department's annual public education open house.
H. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SEASIDE ENGINEERING
STANDARDS TO ADD TRENCH, ASPHALT RESTORATION, AND
MORATORIUM ASPHALT RESTORATION STANDARD DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution amending engineering standards to add trench, asphalt restoration, and moratorium asphalt restoration standard details.
I. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AN $85,000 REAP 2.0 GRANT AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE REQUISITE
Packet Page 3
City Council REGULAR Meeting September 21, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 4
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution to accept a REAP 2.0 grant in the amount of $85,000 and to authorize the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding by the City Manager.
J. APPROVE THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE
CREATION OF A CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the climate action and adaptation plan request for proposal release.
K. NOTICE OF REJECTION OF GOVERNMENT CLAIM OF CARI MCCORMICK (THIS ADDITION TO THE AGENDA OCCURRED AFTER AFTER THE 72 HOUR POSTING DEADLINE, A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED TO ADD
THIS ITEM TO THE AGENDA)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and direct sending appropriate notice of rejection to the claimant: Brent Robinson, Aiman-Smith & Marcy representatives of Cari McCormick for a class action industrial retirement discrimination claim.
9. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. RECEIVE UPDATE FROM CONSERVATION TECHNIX ON THE CITY OF
SEASIDE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION: Receive update on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and provide feedback and direction as necessary.
B. ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES AND
CONSTRUCTION BID DOCUMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AVENUE
COMPLETE STREETS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,576,000.00 FULLY FUNDED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for engineering design services and construction bid documents for the Broadway Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $1,576,000.00.
C. ADOPT FINDINGS FOR THE NEW FORT ORD COURTHOUSE PROJECT
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15096 AND 15162), SURPLUS LANDS ACT, AND
GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPROVE PROPERTY
AQUISITION AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT AND TAKE ALL
SUCH FURTHER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT
Packet Page 4
City Council REGULAR Meeting September 21, 2023 5:00 PM Agenda Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Review and Consider the Final EIR prepared by the Judicial Council. Adopt Resolution approving the Property Acquisition Agreement, making CEQA Findings, Surplus Lands Act and land use consistency findings and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement and execute such other agreements and take all other actions necessary to implement the transfer to the State of California for use as the New Fort Ord Courthouse (previously referenced as the Monterey Family Justice Center Project).
10. COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
A. NEW COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS
B. FOLLOW UP ON PREVIOUS REQUESTS
11. CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR
COMMENTS AND REPORTS ON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
This is a time specifically set aside for members of the City Council, the City Manager and City Attorney to make brief comments of general interest to the community and report on committee assignments.
12. CLOSED SESSION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956 et seq., the City Council and Successor Agency to Redevelopment Agency may adjourn to a Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with litigation, certain personnel matters, property negotiations or to confer with the City Attorney. Public comments on these items are taken after being read by the City Attorney. For the public record, please state your name.
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.9
Potential Litigation (2 MATTERS)
13. ADJOURNMENT
Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting:
October 5, 2023
5:00 p.m.
The City of Seaside is committed to providing accessible facilities and accommodating people with disabilities in all of its services programs and activities. If special considerations are needed by any person to fully participate in this meeting, contact the City Clerk at 899-6707 no fewer than two business days prior to the meeting to allow reasonable arrangements. Agendas are posted at:
http://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/129/City-Council-Committee-Agendas Agenda-related writings or documents provided during public meetings are available for public inspection during the meeting or from the office of the City Clerk. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Governor Newsom's Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-33-20.
Packet Page 5
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.A.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Loreene Bermudez-Onate, Accountant II
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE AND FILE CITY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of July 15, 2023 through August 25, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits, and wired payments related to the pay period ending July 21, 2023, August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $9,154,000.87.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Government Code Section 37208, at each City Council meeting, the Council is provided a listing of the payroll and general checks issued since the last report so that the checks can be inspected and confirmed. Each purchase has been reviewed and approved by the department making the purchase at the time of procurement. The invoices have been reviewed by the Finance Department prior to payment to ensure that they conform to the approved budget.
Therefore, in accordance with Government Code Section 37208, the above referenced and linked list of checks conforms to the approved budget and has been paid. These checks are submitted to the City Council for inspection and confirmation.
A description of the checks and wires exceeding $10,000.00 are as follows:
• $20,985.10 to Access Monterey Peninsula, Inc. for PEG fees (Public, Educational and Government access programming) for AT&T and Comcast for the periods of July-December 2022.
• $31,052.98 to Action Council of Monterey County for Prof. services for the Community Social Services Grant for the periods of January-June 2023.
Packet Page 6
Item No. 8.A. Page 2 of 6
• $11,461.80 to I.A.M.P. for Sound system services for Sunday Blues. • $11,205.00 to Bear Electrical Solutions for Routine traffic signal & response maintenance services for the period of July 2023.
• $49,948.74 to Boys & Girls Club of Monterey County for the Seaside Clubhouse kitchen & exterior door improvement project.
• $18,822.34 to Bureau Veritas Technical Assessments LLC for Prof. plan review services for FYE 2024 facilities condition assessments for the period of June 2023.
• $179,845.00 to California JPIA for the all risk property insurance program policy for the term period of July 2022 through July 2023.
• $34,863.26 to California-American Water for Water consumption for multiple City of Seaside service addresses. Billing period of 5/20/23-6/23/23. Service addresses include city buildings, parks, fire hydrants, irrigation stations, and city affordable housing.
• $48,477.14 to California-American Water for Water consumption for multiple City of Seaside service addresses. Billing period of 6/21/23-7/26/23. Service addresses include city buildings, parks, fire hydrants, irrigation stations, and city affordable housing.
• $10,450.00 to Cardoza & Robinson for Prof. painting services at 1583 Del Monte Ave.
• $34,311.62 to Coastal Paving & Excavating, Inc. for Construction services of the Ord Terrace Elementary School Crossing Improvement Project through June 20, 2023.
• $74,475.00 to Community Human Services for JPA Allocation for FY 2023-24 & CDBG reimbursement for FY 2022-23 quarter 4 (project: Genesis House Facility Improvements).
• $25,000.00 to Community Partnership for Youth for Community social services grant reimbursement request for the period July 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023.
• $14,387.14 to Conservation Technix Inc. for Prof. services for the parks & recreation master plan for the period of June 2023.
• $233,900.28 to County of Monterey for Payment for FY 2023-24 Quarter 1 - Dispatch Services.
• $24,825.00 to Ellis Investigations Law Corporation for Prof. investigative services for the period of April & May 2023.
• $11,710.64 to First Alarm for Installation of Fire Alarm System in the Finance Department modular building.
• $102,150.00 to Flock Safety for License plate reader cameras and shot detection & standard/advanced implementation fee for the period of 2/28/23-2/27/24. • $164,649.51 to Granite Rock Company for Construction services for the Pavement Rehabilitation Project through June 30, 2023.
• $87,343.00 to Granite Rock Company for Construction services for Cutino Park Improvement Part 2, Phase 1 through June 30, 2023.
• $18,396.25 to Harris & Associates, Inc. for Prof. services for Campus Town Phase Packet Page 7
Item No. 8.A. Page 3 of 6
I & Phase II demolition for the period of 5/28/23-7/1/23. • $23,203.45 to Hinderliter, de Lllamas & Associates for Prof. contract/audit services for the period of Quarter 1-2023.
• $12,012.00 to Hope Services for Maintenance services for the period of June 2023.
• $11,895.00 to Hope Services for Maintenance services for the period of July 2023.
• $32,493.59 to Huntington Public Capital Corp. for Quarterly lease contract payment for Vactor and Patch Trucks for the period of 8/8/23-11/7/23; Lease contract payment for the Energy Project at City Hall, City Library, and Fire Department locations.
• $71,175.63 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for RSTP Grant Assistance for FY 2022-23 & professional services for the Broadway Streets Corridor project through April 2023.
• $291,197.13 to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Professional services for the Broadway Streets Corridor project through June 2023; Campus Town services through June 2023; Seaside Fire Station services Phase 1 for the periods of April & May 2023.
• $10,100.00 to Linda Shanahan for United Way rental assistance for 1 tenant from April 2021-September 2022.
• $229,474.67 to Marina Coast Water District for Recycled water meter services for the period of 6/1/23-6/30/23.
• $229,853.53 to Marina Coast Water District for Recycled water meter services for the period of 7/1/23-7/31/23.
• $24,699.00 to Maze & Associates for July 2023 services for the City Audit for the fiscal year ending 6/30/2023.
• $12,500.00 to Meals on Wheels of the Monterey Peninsula for CDGB expenses for home delivered meals for quarter 2.
• $15,490.80 to Monterey Bay Air Resources District for Per Capital Assessment for FY 2023-24.
• $25,863.00 to Monterey Co. Convention & Visitor's Bureau for Jurisdiction Improvement Investment for FY 2023-24 Quarter 1.
• $19,580.22 to Monterey Co. Convention & Visitor's Bureau for TID (Tourism Improvement District) remittance for the reporting period of May 2023 for the 13 Seaside motels/hotels.
• $19,640.61 to Monterey Co. Convention & Visitor's Bureau for TID (Tourism Improvement District) remittance for the reporting period of June 2023 for the 13 Seaside motels/hotels.
• $37,112.17 to Monterey Co. Sheriff-Coroner for Criminal Justice Information System for the quarter ending 6/30/2023.
• $13,241.73 to Monterey One Water for SCSD prof. services for Lift Station Maintenance during January-March 2023.
• $39,734.18 to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for Prof. services for Ellis Park Improvement project through April 30, 2023
Packet Page 8
Item No. 8.A. Page 4 of 6
• $11,851.25 to Monterey Peninsula Engineering for Prof. services for the Del Monte Manor LID Project through June 30, 2023.
• $21,394.60 to One Workplace L. Ferrari, LLC for Purchase of furnishing for the Police Department.
• $18,517.50 to Parametrix, Inc. for Professional evaluation services for a traffic calming plan for the mile-long Hilby Avenue corridor through May 27, 2023; Engineering design & construction documentation for the Ord Terrace Elementary School Traffic Safety Improvement Project through May 27, 2023. • $11,632.04 to Parametrix, Inc. for Professional evaluation services for a traffic calming plan for the mile-long Hilby Avenue corridor through June 30, 2023; Engineering design & construction documentation for the Ord Terrace Elementary School Traffic Safety Improvement Project through June 30, 2023. • $37,191.25 to Pavement Engineering, Inc. for Professional services for the 2023 Hot Spot Repair project through June 30, 2023 & Pavement Rehab project Phase 5 services through June 30, 2023.
• $31,997.50 to Pavement Engineering, Inc. for Professional services for the 2023 Hot Spot Repair project through July 31, 2023 & Pavement Rehab project Phase 5 services through July 31, 2023.
• $49,136.81 to PG&E for Collective accts for street lights, highway lighting, park lights and city office buildings. Service for the statement period of June 2023. • $52,977.80 to PG&E for Collective accts for street lights, highway lighting, park lights and city office buildings. Service for the statement period of July 2023. • $15,381.35 to Potter's Electronics for Purchase and installation of a laser projector at Oldemeyer Center.
• $60,156.34 to Premier Automotive of Seaside, LLC for the purchase of a 2024 Chevy Silverado Utility Truck for the Fire Department.
• $36,306.61 to Rincon Consultants, Inc. for Professional services (CEQA) for Fire Station 2 plan review for the period of May & June 2023. • $52,710.00 to RRM Design Group for Professional architectural and engineering services for the Fire Station 2 project through June 30, 2023. • $20,240.00 to Rider Concrete for Concrete services for a new ADA ramp at 1583 Del Monte.
• $12,082.44 to San Diego Police Equipment Co., Inc. for Ammunition order for Seaside Police Department.
• $27,354.75 to Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineering for Professional engineering services for the Watermaster Plan project through June 2023; Sutter Street sewer main relocation project services for the periods of June & July 2023; Storm Drain Master Plan services through May 2023.
• $13,380.00 to Zarcos Tree Service for trimming services for trees on Balfour/Ancon, Mescal/Broadway, and Ancon/Costa.
• $12,108.58 to Street Decor, Inc. for Christmas decorations. • $11,109.96 to Sturdy Oil Company for 2,054 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) delivered to the public works department on 6/15/23; 110 gallons of CA motor oil delivered to the public works department on 6/22/23.
Packet Page 9
Item No. 8.A. Page 5 of 6
• $19,676.30 to Sturdy Oil Company for 1,400 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) and 1,205 gallons of clear diesel delivered to the public works department on 6/28/23; 1,911 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) delivered to the public works department on 7/12/23.
• $19,144.86 to Sturdy Oil Company for 1,406 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) delivered to the public works department on 7/26/23; 1,497 gallons of regular gas (ethanol) and 1,127 gallons of clear diesel delivered to the public works department on 8/9/23.
• $25,000.00 to Sun Street Centers for Community Social Services grant reimbursement request for the periods of 1/1/23-3/31/23 & 4/1/23-6/30/23. • $10,072.62 to Tanya Tarantino for Refund for overpayment of STR TOT. • $13,588.40 to Target Solutions Learning, LLC for Premier maintenance fees from 7/1/23-6/30/24 for an on-line training and certificates management system. • $25,000.00 to The Village Project, Inc. for Community social services grant reimbursement request for the period April 1, 2023 through June 30, 2023. • $60,340.85 to U.S. Bank-Calcard for City of Seaside purchase card transactions for the billing period of May 2023.
• $44,998.47 to U.S. Bank-Calcard for City of Seaside purchase card transactions for the billing period of June 2023.
• $30,786.77 to U.S. Bank-Calcard for City of Seaside purchase card transactions for the billing period of July 2023.
• $33,086.11 to Wallace Group for June 2023 invoices for: Cutino & Ellis Parks Improvement services (Part 2, Phase 1); Bike Safe Strom Grates services; American Legion Plan Review; Lincoln Cunningham Basketball Court Improvement project services; Ord Terrace Elementary School Crossing project services.
• $758,254.82 to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A./Computershare for Annual debt service payment for FY 2023-24.
• $33,795.72 to Whitson Engineers for June 2023 invoices for: Professional services for Cutino Park Improvements; Del Monte Manor LID Project; Fernando Park Playground Improvements; Lincoln-Cunningham & Havanna-Soliz Parks Review; Yosemite/San Pablo Storm Drain services; 1000 Playa Avenue LLA Review.
• $12,120.11 to Whitson Engineers for July 2023 invoices for: Professional services for Cutino Park Improvements; Fernando Park Playground Improvements; Lincoln-Cunningham & Havanna-Soliz Parks Review; Yosemite/San Pablo Storm Drain services. June 2023 invoice for City Hall Parking Lot Repaving project services.
The Net Payroll and Payroll benefits total was $3,660,011.84.
The remaining checks, totaling $1,585,068.71, include payments to vendors for operating expenditures.
Packet Page 10
Item No. 8.A. Page 6 of 6
The check report is available on the City's website here:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/194/Check-Draft-Register
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no additional fiscal impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 11
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.B.
TO: Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seaside FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Loreene Bermudez-Onate, Accountant II
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE AND FILE SUCCESSOR AGENCY CHECKS
RECOMMENDATION
Approve and file the accounts payable and wired payments made during the period of July 15, 2023 through August 25, 2023, including the payroll and benefits checks, direct deposits and wired payments related to the pay period ending July 21, 2023, August 4, 2023, and August 18, 2023. Total Accounts Payable and Payroll for the above referenced period is $1,432.73.
BACKGROUND
In accordance with Government Code Section 37208, at each City Council meeting the Council is provided a listing of the payroll and general checks issued since the last report so that it can inspect and confirm these checks. Each purchase has been reviewed and approved by the department making the purchase at the time of procurement. The invoice has been reviewed by the Finance Department prior to payment to ensure that it conforms to the approved budget.
Therefore, in accordance with Government Code Section 37208, the above referenced, and linked list of checks conforms to the approved budget and has been paid. These checks are submitted to the City Council for inspection and confirmation.
A description of the checks and wires exceeding $10,000 are as follows:
• No checks exceeded $10,000.
The Checks report is available on the City's website here:
https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/194/Check-Draft-Register
Packet Page 12
Item No. 8.B. Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no additional fiscal impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Packet Page 13
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.C.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST
FROM CENTRAL COAST HIGH SCHOOL FOR THEIR WORK TO
LEARN PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from Central Coast High School for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund for the costs associated with their Work to Learn Program.
BACKGROUND
Central Coast High School is requesting a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund to help cover the cost associated with their Work to Learn Program. This program was established at Central Coast High School in 2019 to bring meaningful work experience to their general education students with the goal of building essential skills to improve and expand their student's post-secondary options. The program is designed to place students in a field they are considering as a career so that they have a direct and experiential glimpse into possibilities for the future.
Students who are selected for the program will be offered a job placement at a site which encourages a reduce, reuse and recycle philosophy. Their Work to Learn Program will continue their efforts to select community partners whose values include an utmost priority on reduce, reuse and recycle. Additionally, they will highlight green sustainability in the job site training portion of their program and systematically embed environmental awareness into their orientation.
Based on the information provided in the application, the request meets the criteria for the Mayor's Youth Fund Policy. They received their last donation at the September 15, 2022 City Council meeting. They submitted their 2022 Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report within the 60 day time frame.
Packet Page 14
Item No. 8.C. Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT
This request would be funded by a donation from the Green Waste Recovery's donation to the Mayor's Youth Fund. The current balance is the Mayor's Youth Fund account (601-2106) is $75,107.02. If the City Council approves this request, the balance will decrease to $72,107.02. This is for fiscal year 2023/24.
In the event that all of the funds in the Mayor's Youth Fund become exhausted, staff will keep a file of all applications. Once Green Waste issues the next round of funding, all applications on file will be processed at the next available City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. MYF Central Coast High School 2023
2. Central Coast High School-W9 2023
3. Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report - Central Coast High School 2022 Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 15
Packet Page 16
Packet Page 17
Packet Page 18
Packet Page 19
Packet Page 20
Packet Page 21
Packet Page 22
Packet Page 23
Packet Page 24
Packet Page 25
Packet Page 26
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.D.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MAYOR'S YOUTH FUND CONTRIBUTION REQUEST
FROM SEASIDE BLADE RUNNERS BASKETBALL
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a request from Seaside Blade Runners Basketball for a donation of $3,000.00 from the Mayor's Youth Fund to help cover the costs for equipment, uniforms, gym expenses, tournaments and transportation.
BACKGROUND
Founded in 2011, the Seaside Blade Runners Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) Travel Basketball Program is a vital part of the Central Coast of California's mentoring program for young people. They are dedicated to youth development, healthy living, and social responsibility. Annually, they do beach cleanups and pick up all the recyclables and garbage. In addition, they clean up and collect recyclables after their practices & games.
Based on the information provided, staff has determined that the application meets the requirements of the Mayor's Youth Fund Policy. Seaside Blade Runners Basketball received their last donation at the September 01, 2023, City Council meeting. They submitted their 2022 Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report within the 60 day time frame.
FISCAL IMPACT
This request would be funded by a donation from the Green Waste Recovery's donation to the Mayor's Youth Fund. The current balance is the Mayor's Youth Fund account (601-2106) is $72,107.02. If the City Council approves this request, the balance will decrease to $69,107.02. This is for fiscal year 2023/24.
Packet Page 27
Item No. 8.D. Page 2 of 2
In the event that all of the funds in the Mayor's Youth Fund become exhausted, staff will keep a file of all applications. Once Green Waste issues the next round of funding, all applications on file will be processed at the next available City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
1. MYF - Seaside Blade Runners Basketball 2023
2. W-9 - Seaside Blade Runners Basketball 2023
3. Mayor's Youth Fund Closing Report - Seaside Blade Runners Basketball 2022 Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 28
Packet Page 29
Packet Page 30
Packet Page 31
Packet Page 32
Packet Page 33
Packet Page 34
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.E.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Rosa Salcedo, Executive Assistant
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER AS CHILDHOOD
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuing a proclamation to Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services, and declaring September 2023 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in Seaside.
BACKGROUND
September has been designated as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and serves as a time to recognize children and families affected by childhood cancers. This month also emphasizes the importance of supporting research on these devastating conditions.
The attached proclamation also seeks to authorize the lighting of City Hall in gold (yellow), which serves as a symbol for all forms of cancer affecting children and adolescents, for the month of September.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Honoring Jacob's Heart Children's Cancer Support Services Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
Packet Page 35
Item No. 8.E. Page 2 of 2
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 36
City of Seaside
PROCLAMATION
Honoring Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services and Declaring September 2023 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month WHEREAS, the character of our community is revealed in how we treat our most vulnerable; and
WHEREAS, each year, 19 in every 100,000 children in our community will be diagnosed with cancer; and
WHEREAS, cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease among children, killing more children than asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, congenital anomalies, and AIDS combined; and WHEREAS, Jacob’s Heart has been keeping medically fragile children and families housed, fed, and emotionally supported by steadfastly adhering to the following commitments: 1) Parents of children with cancer and other serious illnesses will be relieved of financial fears and able to focus attention on their children: 2) No child undergoing intensive treatment in our community will be homeless: 3) Families of seriously ill children will not experience food insecurity during and after pandemic: and 4) No child seriously ill in our community will ever miss a medical appointment because of a lack of transportation; and
WHEREAS, Jacob’s Heart holds the memories and honors the legacies of hundreds of children from our local community who have been lost to cancer, ensuring that their precious memories will never be forgotten; and
WHEREAS, the oncology department at Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford has worked closely with Jacob’s Heart for the past 25 years as a trusted community partner in providing family-centered care that addresses the emotional, practical and financial struggles of families of children with cancer in Seaside; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Seaside residents to recognize the impact of pediatric cancer on families within our community and honor the children in our community whose lives have been cut short by cancer.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, The Honorable Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor of the City of Seaside, California, on behalf of the City Council do hereby declare September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Seaside and do hereby honor Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services for outstanding support to our community and acknowledge the organization’s contributions to Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, honoring children with cancer in our community.
_________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
September 21, 2023
Packet Page 37
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.F.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Carolyn Burke, Assistant Public Works Director
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 25 TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2023, AS STORMWATER AWARENESS WEEK FOR
STORMWATER CONTROL
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a proclamation to recognize Stormwater Awareness Week and the efforts of City staff to protect water quality.
BACKGROUND
The City of Seaside operates a separate municipal storm sewer system (MS4) and is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). Storm drains flow directly to our waterways. It is inherent that only rain should flow down the drain in order to preserve our natural ecosystems.
City staff often serve on the front lines of water quality protection. In preparation for the upcoming rainy season, City staff will undergo training on best management practices to ensure that our waterways are protected. This training is a part of a statewide effort called Stormwater Awareness Week which will be held September 25th through September 29th. The City is a member of a regional collaboration called the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program. This effort, which has spanned nearly 20 years, aims to cost-effectively and consistently meet our Clean Water Act requirements.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with the Council action.
Packet Page 38
Item No. 8.F. Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2023 Stormwater Awareness Proclamation
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 39
City of Seaside
PROCLAMATION
Stormwater Awareness Week
September 25 – September 29, 2023
WHEREAS, the water quality of our local water resources are of vital importance to sustainable communities and to the health, safety, and well-being of the people of this community; and,
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the citizens, staff, civic leaders, business interests, and children in our community to gain knowledge of and maintain a progressive interest and understanding of stormwater and the protection of our water resources; and, WHEREAS, stormwater is increasingly considered a resource for our community, where every drop counts as demonstrated by its contributions to groundwater recharge; and,
WHEREAS, City Staff often serve as the front line of water quality protection; and, WHEREAS, Since 2022 the City has participated in a regional collaboration called the Monterey Regional Stormwater Management Program (MRSWMP) to implement local Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II Stormwater Permit Requirements under the Clean Water Act in a consistent and cost-effective manner; and, WHEREAS, the year 2023 marks eleven years of the annual Stormwater Awareness Week, a statewide effort to train agency and municipal staff on stormwater and water quality issues;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, The Honorable Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor of the City of Seaside, do hereby proclaim the week September 25 – September 29, 2023 as STORMWATER AWARENESS WEEK, and extends appreciation to City Staff and the public for their dedication to protecting water quality and our waterways.
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
September 21, 2023
Packet Page 40
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.G.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Paul Blaha, Deputy Fire Chief
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE OF
YOSEMITE STREET, BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE AND
MENDOCINO STREET, ON OCTOBER 7, 2023 FOR SEASIDE FIRE
DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL COMMUNITY PUBLIC EDUCATION
OPEN HOUSE
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving closure of Yosemite Street, between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street on October 7, 2023, from 7:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. for the Fire Department's annual public education open house.
BACKGROUND
Every year, the Seaside Fire Department has a community open house to allow the public to interact with firefighters, learn fire prevention safety tips, witness fire safety and rescue demonstrations and see various firefighting apparatus and equipment.
Educational events are hosted by cities and fire departments throughout the United States.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has announced that fire prevention week will be celebrating its 101st anniversary. According to NFPA, Fire Prevention Week is the longest-running US public health observance on record.
It is necessary to close a portion of Yosemite Street between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street so fire apparatus can be out for display, and various community vendors can set up educational tables. The neighbors are informed weeks in advance by delivering a letter to each home that may be impacted.
A street closure resolution and proclamation are a part of the September 21, 2023 City Packet Page 41
Item No. 8.G. Page 2 of 2
Council agenda.
This year the theme for this event will be "Cooking safety starts with YOU."
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal Impact is approximately $6,000.00
ATTACHMENTS
1. Fire Prevention Week 2023 Proclamation (2)_2
2. Resolution (Road Closure) Fire Open House October 7_2023
3. Road Closure Notification Letter to Residents Fire Dept. Open House Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 42
CITY OF SEASIDE
PROCLAMATION
OCTOBER 8-14, 2023 FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting our state; and.
WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week is the longest-running United States public health observance on record; and
WHEREAS, Fire Prevention Week will celebrate its 101st anniversary October 8-14, 2023; and WHEREAS this year the theme is Cooking safety starts with YOU; and WHEREAS, forty nine (49%) of all US fires are due to kitchen equipment; and WHEREAS, fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at greatest risk from fire; and WHEREAS, it is critical to always keep a close eye on what you’re cooking, clear the cooking area of combustible items, turn pot handles toward the back of the stove, create a kid and pet free zone; and
WHEREAS, homes today burn faster and hotter than they used to, minimizing the amount of time families have to escape safely; and
WHEREAS, in a typical home fire, you may have as little as two minutes to get out from the time the smoke alarm sounds; and
Packet Page 43
WHEREAS, City of Seaside residents should be sure everyone uses a cooking timer and avoid distractions that remove your focus from what’s on the stove; and WHEREAS, City of Seaside residents who have planned and practiced a home fire escape plan are more prepared and will therefore be more likely to survive a fire; and WHEREAS, City of Seaside residents will make sure their smoke and CO alarms meet the needs of all their family members, including those with sensory or physical disabilities; and WHEREAS, City of Seaside first responders are dedicated to reducing the occurrence of home fires and home fire injuries through education and prevention; and WHEREAS, City of Seaside residents are responsive to public education measures are better able to take personal steps to increase their safety from fire, especially in their homes; and THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that, I Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor of Seaside do hereby proclaim October 8-14, 2023, as Fire Prevention Week, and I urge all the people of City of Seaside to “Cooking safety starts with YOU” for Fire Prevention Week 2023 and to support the Fire Department Open House scheduled for October 7, 2023.
_________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
September 21, 2023
Packet Page 44
RESOLUTION NO. 23-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE APPROVING THE
CLOSURE OF YOSEMITE STREET, BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE AND MENDOCINO STREET FOR THE SEASIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT OPEN HOUSE ON OCTOBER 7, 2023.
WHEREAS, the closing of Yosemite Street between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street is necessary for the Seaside Fire Department’s annual Open House on Saturday, October 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to close Yosemite Street, between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street to insure the safety of the public using this portion of road during the course of the 9-hour period (7:00 AM – 4:00 PM).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside does hereby approve the closure of Yosemite Street between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street to ensure the safety of the public using this portion of roadway during this Fire Department event.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 21st day of September 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 45
FIRE DEPARTMENT
1635 Broadway Avenue Telephone (831) 899-6790
Seaside, CA 93955 FAX (831) 899-6261
August 29, 2023
Dear Residents,
The Seaside Fire Department is again seeking your support with the closing of Yosemite Street, between Broadway Avenue and Mendocino Street, for our Annual Open House. This section of Yosemite will be closed from 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Saturday, October 7, 2023. The closure will include set up and break down of the event.
This year’s event will include live demonstrations, numerous displays, informational booths, activities for kids, as well as other various forms of fun educational information regarding fire safety.
It was your cooperation in years past that made the Fire Department Open House such a success. If you have any questions, comments or concerns please feel free reach out.
We would like to thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance in this experience, and hope that you and your families will join us this day.
Sincerely,
Mary Gutierrez,
Fire Chief, City of Seaside
(831) 899-6786
Packet Page 46
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.H.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Leslie Llantero, Assistant Engineer
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SEASIDE
ENGINEERING STANDARDS TO ADD TRENCH, ASPHALT
RESTORATION, AND MORATORIUM ASPHALT RESTORATION
STANDARD DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending engineering standards to add trench, asphalt restoration, and moratorium asphalt restoration standard details.
BACKGROUND
The City Engineering Standards were adopted in the 1970's, which include some engineering design standards for streets, sanitary sewer, and storm drains. The Engineering Division intends on updating all the engineering standards this fiscal year.
Due to the recent passage of the street cut moratorium, it is appropriate to adopt updated trench standard details and pavement restoration standard details at this time.
The revisions to the City's Engineering Standards are being revised to reflect current practices and to ensure the longest life of the pavement patch.
Cuts in the pavement are usually trench cuts for repairing utility lines within the roadway. These types of cuts in the pavement can range from several feet for main line replacements or small cuts for localized work. If the trench is not backfilled, compacted, and patched properly, the trench and pavement will fail. The proposed engineering standard details will provide the structural pavement section as well as backfill and compaction requirements for trenches. Moratorium standard details are also being considered to provide additional pavement restoration requirements as outlined in the Seaside Municipal Code Section 12.04.120 Moratorium, restoration requirements. The proposed engineering standard details are identified below:
Packet Page 47
Item No. 8.H. Page 2 of 2
Dwg No. Standard Name
ST-610 Trench Details
ST-620 Trench Backfill & Resurfacing
ST-630 Trench Notes
ST-640 Asphalt Restoration (1 of 3)
ST-650 Asphalt Restoration (2 of 3)
ST-660 Asphalt Restoration (3 of 3)
SM-670 Street Moratorium Trench Detail (1 of 2)
SM-680 Street Moratorium Asphalt Restoration (2 of 2)
The above proposed standard details will update and replace the current pavement replacement standard (ST-13) and temporary pavement replacement standard (ST-29).
Staff recommends adopting a resolution amending the City of Seaside Engineering Standards by adding the proposed standard details identified above and removing the pavement replacement standard (ST-13) and the temporary pavement replacement standard (ST-29).
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Engineering Standard Details
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 48
RESOLUTION NO. 23-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
AMENDING CITY OF SEASIDE ENGINEERING STANDARDS TO ADD TRENCH
STANDARD, ASPHALT RESTORATION STANDARD, MORATORIUM ASPHALT
STANDARD DETAILS AND REMOVE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT STANDARD (ST-13) AND TEMPORARY PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT STANDARD (ST-29).
WHEREAS, the City of Seaside has previously adopted certain engineering standards governing development in the City, by Resolution No. 71-50; and WHEREAS, the City of Seaside has previously adopted certain revised engineering standards by Resolution No. 72-74 and 79-9; and WHEREAS, to preserve the pavement network, the City Engineer has proposed amendments to the City of Seaside Engineering Standards to add trench standard, asphalt restoration standard and moratorium asphalt restoration standard details for all excavations, attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the proposed engineering standards will update and replace the existing pavement replacement standard (ST-13) and temporary pavement replacement standard (ST-29).
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby adopts the trench standard, asphalt restoration standard, and moratorium asphalt restoration standard details for all excavations attached hereto, to be incorporated into the Engineering Standards for the City of Seaside and removes pavement replacement standard (ST-13) and temporary pavement replacement standard (ST-29).
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 21st day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 49
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-610 TRENCH DETAILS
SHEET 1 OF 3
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
Packet Page 50
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-620 TRENCH BACKFILL & RESURFACING
SHEET 2 OF 3
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
Packet Page 51
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-630 TRENCH NOTES
SHEET 3 OF 3
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
Packet Page 52
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-640 ASPHALT RESTORATION
SHEET 1 OF 3
Packet Page 53
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-650 ASPHALT RESTORATION
SHEET 2 OF 3
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
Packet Page 54
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
ST-660 ASPHALT RESTORATION
SHEET 3 OF 3
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
Packet Page 55
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
SM-670 TRENCH DETAILS
SHEET 1 OF 2
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
STREET MORATORIUM
Packet Page 56
APPROVED:
Nisha A. Patel, CITY ENGINEER - RCE NO. 72491 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STANDARD DRAWING FOR
SM-680 ASPHALT RESTORATION
SHEET 2 OF 2
CITY OF SEASID
E
C A L I F O R N I A
STREET MORATORIUM
Packet Page 57
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.I.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Alexia Rapoport, Housing Program Manager
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AN $85,000 REAP 2.0
GRANT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE REQUISITE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to accept a REAP 2.0 grant in the amount of $85,000 and to authorize the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding by the City Manager.
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2023, the Seaside City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the submittal of an $85,000 REAP 2.0 grant application. The REAP 2.0 program is funded by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and administered by the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). On September 1, 2023, the City received notice that its application was accepted and awarded in full. In order to access the grant funds, the Seaside City Council must adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) formally accepting the award and authorizing the City Manager to execute a requisite Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment 2).
FISCAL IMPACT
None, no matching funds are required.
ATTACHMENTS
1. REAP 2.0 Acceptance Resolution
2. REAP 2.0 MOU
Packet Page 58
Item No. 8.I. Page 2 of 2
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 59
A RESOLUTION
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SEASIDE
TO APPROVE
ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS
FOR THE REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING GRANT 2.0 PROGRAM
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is authorized to provide up to $510,000,000 to Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Government listed in Health and Safety Code Section 50515.08, subdivisions (a)(1)-(6) under the Regional Early Action Planning Grants Program (REAP 2.0), as detailed in Health and Safety Code Section 50515.08-10.
WHEREAS the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of Funding Availability on July 26, 2022 for REAP 2.0 grants available to Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Government; WHEREAS the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) requested funds from HCD pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50515.08(c) to develop and accelerate the implementation of the requirements described in Health and Safety Code section 50515.08(c)(1).
WHEREAS HCD approved AMBAG’s Request for Funds, subject to the terms and conditions of Eligibility, Guidelines, NOFAs, Program requirements, and the Standard Agreement by and between HCD and AMBAG;
WHEREAS AMBAG is authorized to suballocate REAP 2.0 funds to eligible applicants in the AMBAG region and will administer the REAP 2.0 grant program and provide oversight of the grant program in the AMBAG region;
WHEREAS AMBAG developed a suballocation program in cooperation with HCD and eligible applicants in the AMBAG region,
WHEREAS the AMBAG issued a Notice of Funding Availability for a REAP 2.0 suballocation program for eligible applicants in the AMBAG region on June 15, 2023; WHEREAS, the City of Seaside is eligible to submit a request for allocation for a portion of REAP
2.0 funds from AMBAG; and
Packet Page 60
WHEREAS, the amounts allocated to the City of Seaside will be based on the allocation method approved by HCD and AMBAG; and
WHEREAS, AMBAG shall approve allocation requests subject to the terms and conditions of eligibility, guidelines, Notices of Funding Availability, and program requirements.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City of Seaside is hereby authorized to accept an allocation not to exceed $85,000 from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments for REAP 2.0 grant funding, and
2. The City of Seaside is hereby authorized to enter into agreements and take further actions as may be necessary to give effect to this resolution, such as executing amendments, memorandums of understanding, and approving funding applications with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments for REAP 2.0 grant funding.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
_________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Sheri Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 61
Packet Page 62
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between
THE ASSOCIATION OF MONTEREY BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
and
THE CITY OF SEASIDE
Regarding
REGIONAL EARLY ACTION PLANNING GRANTS PROGRAM OF 2021
WHEREAS, on June 29, 2021, Governor Newsom signed the Budget Act of Fiscal Year 2021-2022 which established the Regional Early Action Planning Grants Program of 2021 (REAP 2.0 or Program) which allocated $600 million in one-time funds to accelerate infill housing development, affirmatively further fair housing, and reduce VMT; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has been assigned as the state agency overseeing this program; and
WHEREAS, a portion of REAP 2.0 funds have been allocated to the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG); and
WHEREAS, AMBAG will grant the majority of REAP 2.0 funds to eligible entities in the AMBAG area; and WHEREAS, eligible entities may apply for a portion of AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 funds according to an allocation method approved by the AMBAG Board; and
WHEREAS, AMBAG shall approve grant applications subject to the terms and conditions of eligibility, guidelines, Notices of Funding Availability, and program requirements.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The following agreement is entered into between The City of Seaside (Grantee) and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG).
Packet Page 63
AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK
1. Authority
The Regional Early Action Planning Grants Program of 2021 (REAP 2.0 or Program) is established for the purpose of providing regions with one-time funding, including grants for transformative planning and implementation activities. Up to eight million six hundred and twenty-five thousand ($8,625,000) shall be distributed by AMBAG to eligible entities in the AMBAG area under the Program in accordance with Chapter 3.15 of the California Health and Safety Code (Statute). The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) shall administer the Program to eligible entities in the AMBAG area in accordance with the Statute and AMBAG’s REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program and Regional Competitive Grant Program Guidelines (Guidelines), pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50515.10(h), and program guidance.
This Agreement (Agreement) authorizes the encumbrance of the total funds available to the awardee, subject to all statutory requirements and all applicable provisions, including but not limited to the Guidelines, approved applications, and any subsequent modifications.
The Grantee shall consult with AMBAG on any amendment modification or other provision related to the implementation of the Program. AMBAG’s decisions related to the administration of the Program shall be final.
2. Purpose
In accordance with the authority cited above, the Grantee has been awarded financial assistance in the form of a grant from the Program. AMBAG has agreed to make the grant for planning and implementation activities pursuant to the Guidelines and this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement and thereby accepting the award of the Program funds, the Grantee agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Guidelines, application, as well as this Agreement, subsequent amendments or modifications to this Agreement and the requirements of the authority cited above.
Based on all representations made by the Grantee, AMBAG shall encumber the full amount pursuant to the Guidelines and provide payment upon reimbursement request and subsequent payments in accordance with this agreement. All terms, conditions and other relevant provisions will be subject to amendments as a result of subsequent applications and awards for remaining funds in accordance with this agreement.
3. Definitions
Terms herein shall have the same meaning as defined by the Guidelines and Statute.
4. Scope of Work
Packet Page 64
Grantee shall use the awarded funds in accordance with the approved scope of work as contained in the timeline and budget and related information outlined in the approved application as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and as set forth in this agreement. The scope of work may be amended in compliance with statutory requirements subject to approval by AMBAG.
5. Monitoring
A. The Grantee shall maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence that demonstrates the funding was used for the appropriate purposes, as described in the Statute, Guidelines, Scope of Work, application, subsequent approved applications and all other pertinent documents. These books, records, documents and other evidence shall be available for audit and inspection by AMBAG at AMBAG’s principal place of business.
B. AMBAG may request additional information, as needed, to demonstrate statutory compliance, satisfaction of program requirements and necessary amendments to this Agreement, including but not limited to reporting or audit requirements, or award amount to the Grantee.
C. AMBAG may monitor expenditures and activities of the Grantee, as AMBAG deems necessary, to ensure compliance with statutory or AMBAG requirements.
D. AMBAG may, as it deems appropriate or necessary, request the repayment of funds from a Grantee or pursue any other remedies available to it by law for failure to comply with Program requirements pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50515.10 (g).
E. AMBAG’s decision to approve or deny an application or request for funding pursuant to the program, and its determination of the amount of funding to be provided, shall be final pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50515.10(i).
F. Monitoring provisions may be amended and are subject to additional provisions in accordance with this Agreement or subsequent amendments.
6. AMBAG Contract Coordinator
The Contract Coordinator of this Agreement for AMBAG is Paul Hierling, Senior Planner. Any notice, report, or other communication required by this Agreement shall be submitted under the penalty of perjury by email to [email protected].
Packet Page 65
BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS
1. Application for Funds
A. AMBAG is entering into this Agreement on the basis of, and in reliance upon, facts, information, assertions and representations contained in any application or award or any subsequent modifications or additions to such thereto approved by AMBAG.
All awarded applications for funding and any approved modifications and additions thereto are hereby incorporated into this Agreement.
B. The Grantee warrants that all information, facts, assertions and representations contained in any approved application, award or approved modifications and additions thereto are true, correct, and complete to the best of the Grantee’s knowledge. In the event that any part of an application and any approved modification and addition thereto is untrue, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading in such a manner that would affect AMBAG's approval, disbursement, or monitoring of the funding and the grant or activities governed by this Agreement, AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee may declare a breach hereof and take such action or pursue such remedies as are provided for breach hereof.
2. Grant and Reimbursement Limit
A. The maximum total amount encumbered to the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $85,000.
B. This Agreement authorizes payments and awards up to the total award amount as described in Section 2A of this Exhibit and is subject to AMBAG approval.
C. The Grantee shall submit and follow a schedule for the expenditure of the award prior to disbursement of funds as attached hereto and incorporated hereby this reference. The schedule is subject to AMBAG approval and may be revised as AMBAG deems necessary.
3. Grant Timelines
A. This Agreement is effective upon approval by all parties and AMBAG.
B. All Grant funds must be obligated no later than March 31, 2024 and expended by March 31, 2026 unless the grant recipient receives an extension to the grant expenditure deadline in writing.
Packet Page 66
C. Extensions to the March 31, 2026 grant spending deadline may only be granted by AMBAG to the grantee in writing after September 31, 2025 and only if the grantee has spent at least 60% of their REAP 2.0 grant by September 31, 2025.
D. Final invoices must be submitted to AMBAG by April 15, 2026. Under special circumstances, approved by AMBAG and in accordance with the expenditure deadline, AMBAG may modify the invoice deadline and may provide exception to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
E. It is the responsibility of the Grantee to monitor the progress and timeliness of grant fund obligations, including invoicing and reimbursements within the specified dates.
4. Allowable Uses of Grant Funds
A. AMBAG shall not award or disburse funds unless it determines that the grant funds shall be expended in compliance with the terms and provisions of the Statute and REAP 2.0 Guidelines which includes associated forms and guidelines, approved applications and this Agreement.
B. Grant funds shall only be used by the Grantee for project activities approved by AMBAG that involve planning and implementation activities in accordance with the Statute and REAP 2.0 Guidelines.
C. Grant funds may not be used for administrative costs of persons employed by the Grantee for activities not directly related to eligible activities.
D. A Grantee that receives funds under this Program may use a subcontractor and Grantee shall be accountable to AMBAG to ensure subcontractor’s performance of the subcontract shall comply with all the requirements of the Program. The subcontract shall not relieve the Grantee of its responsibilities under the Program.
E. After the Agreement has been executed by AMBAG and all parties, approved and eligible costs for eligible activities may be reimbursed for the project(s) upon completion of deliverables in accordance with the scope of work and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Packet Page 67
REAP 2 .0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Accounting and Records
A. The Grantee, its employees, contractors, and subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system and reports that properly accumulate incurred project costs by line. The accounting system shall conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), enable the determination of incurred costs at interim points of completion, and provide support for invoices. Grantees may establish and maintain an accounting system and reports, as described above, on behalf of contractors and subcontractors.
B. The Grantee must establish a separate ledger account for receipts and expenditures of grant funds and maintain expenditure details in accordance with the budget and timeline. Separate bank accounts are not required.
C. The Grantee shall maintain documentation of its normal procurement policy and competitive bid process (including the use of sole source purchasing), and financial records of expenditures incurred during the course of the project in accordance with GAAP.
D. The Grantee agrees that AMBAG or designated representative shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the performance of the Agreement.
E. The Grantee agrees to maintain such records for a possible audit after the final payment for at least five years after all funds have been expended or returned to AMBAG unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Wherever practicable, such records should be collected, transmitted, and stored in open and machine- readable formats.
F. Contractors and subcontractors employed by the Grantee and paid with moneys under the terms of this Agreement shall be responsible for maintaining accounting records as specified above.
2. Invoicing
A. Grant funds cannot be disbursed until the Agreement has been fully executed.
B. The Grantee will be responsible for compiling and submitting all invoices and Packet Page 68
reporting documents.
C. The Grantee must bill AMBAG based on clear deliverables outlined in the Agreement or budget timeline. Generally, approved and eligible costs incurred for work after execution of the Agreement and completed during the grant term will be reimbursable.
D. The Grantee shall submit to AMBAG on a quarterly basis or upon completion of deliverable, and each requisition for payment (Invoice) shall accompanied by a narrative progress report. Quarters are defined as July 1 to September 30, October 1 to December 31, January 1 to March 31, and April 1 to June 30. Project invoices may be submitted to AMBAG by the Grantee on a quarterly basis or upon completion of a deliverable, subject to AMBAG’s approval.
E. The grantee shall submit an invoice to AMBAG no later than fifteen calendar days (15) after the close of each quarter. Invoices shall describe progress toward completion of tasks, projects, and products, conformance with project schedules and reporting of costs incurred.
F. Year-end Invoices, reports, and supporting documentation submitted in the quarter April 1 to June 30 submitted over fifteen calendar days (15) after the close of the quarter shall not be paid.
G. All invoices must also include supporting documentations including receipts or backup for all expenses for which reimbursement is sought. Supporting documentation may include, but is not limited to, purchase orders, receipts, progress payments, subcontractor invoices, timecards, reports, or any other documentation as deemed necessary by AMBAG to support the reimbursement to the Grantee for expenditures incurred.
H. Payment of Invoices is contingent upon receipt by AMBAG or the above documentation provided by the Grantee. Payment to Grantee is further contingent upon AMBAG’s determination that the performance of the Grantee meets State and AMBAG standards.
I. All Grantee funds must be spent and work completed by March 31, 2026.
J. AMBAG must indicate approval of Grantees invoices before they will be considered complete
3. Audits
Packet Page 69
A. At any time during the term of the Agreement, AMBAG may perform or cause to be performed a financial audit of any and all phases of the award. At AMBAG’s request, the Grantee shall provide, at its own expense, a financial audit prepared by a certified public accountant. AMBAG has the right to review project documents and conduct audits during project implementation and over the project life.
B. The Grantee agrees that AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee shall have the right to review, obtain, and copy all records and supporting documentation pertaining to performance of this Agreement.
C. The Grantee agrees to provide AMBAG, or AMBAG’s designee, with any relevant information requested.
D. The Grantee agrees to permit AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees who might reasonably have information related to such records and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purpose of determining compliance with statutes, REAP 2.0 Guidelines, and the Agreement.
E. AMBAG may request additional information, as needed, to meet other applicable audit requirements.
F. AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee may monitor expenditures and activities of a Grantee or its designees, contractors or subcontractors, as AMBAG deems necessary, to ensure compliance with REAP requirements.
G. If there are audit findings, the Grantee must submit a detailed response acceptable to AMBAG or AMBAG’s designee for each audit finding within 90 days from the date of the audit finding report.
H. The Grantee agrees to maintain such records for possible audit after the final payment for at least five years after all funds have been expended or returned to AMBAG unless a longer period of records retention is stipulated. Wherever practicable, such records should be collected, transmitted, and stored in open and machine- readable formats.
I. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, monitoring, inspection, or other action has been started before the expiration of the required record retention period, all records must be retained by the Grantee and its designees, contractors, and subcontractors until completion of the action and resolution of all issues which arise from it. In any contract that it enters into in an amount exceeding $10,000, the Packet Page 70
Grantee shall include AMBAG’s right to audit the contractor’s records and interview their employees.
J. The Grantee shall comply with and be aware of the requirements and penalties for violations of fraud and for obstruction of investigation as set forth in California Public Contracts Code Section 10115.10.
4. Remedies and Non-Performance
A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by AMBAG’s Executive Director, or the Executive Director’s designee, who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by the Grantee. The decision of AMBAG’s Executive Director or Designee shall be AMBAG’s final decision regarding the dispute, not subject to appeal.
B. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by AMBAG will excuse the Grantee from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
C. In the event that it is determined, at the sole discretion of AMBAG, that the Grantee is not meeting the terms and conditions of the Agreement, immediately upon receiving a written notice from AMBAG to stop work, the Grantee shall cease all work under the Agreement. AMBAG has the sole discretion to determine that the Grantee meets the terms and conditions after a stop work order, and to deliver a written notice to the Grantee to resume work under the Agreement.
D. AMBAG has the right to terminate the Agreement at any time upon 30 calendar days written notice. The notice shall specify the reason for early termination and may permit the Grantee or AMBAG to rectify any deficiency(ies) prior to the early termination date. The Grantee will submit any requested documents to AMBAG within 30 calendar days of the early termination notice.
E. The applicant must demonstrate a clear and significant nexus to REAP 2.0 Program goals and objectives and must carry out provisions to meet the Program goals and objectives and other requirements, including, but not limited to, adoption or completion of activities toward policy outcomes and implementation of eligible use activities funded through a suballocation process. Any lack of action or action inconsistent with REAP 2.0 requirements may result in review and could be subject to repayment of the grant.
F. At any time, if AMBAG finds the Grantee included false information in application, as part of the application review, or subsequent amendments, AMBAG may require Packet Page 71
the repayment of funds.
G. Grantees are responsible for suballocations meeting all REAP 2.0 requirements.
H. If a grantee has not spent at least 20% of a REAP 2.0 grant awarded by December 31, 2024, that grantee’s funding will be deobligated and reallocated to another grantee and/or purpose at the discretion of AMBAG’s Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee.
I. If a grantee has not spent at 60% of a REAP 2.0 grant awarded by September 31, 2025, that grantee’s funding may be deobligated and reallocated to another grantee, and/or purpose at the discretion of AMBAG’s Executive Director or the Executive Director’s designee.
J. Examples of a breach of this Agreement:
1. Grantee’s failure to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.
2. Use of, or permitting the use of, grant funds provided under this Agreement for any ineligible costs or for any activity not specified and approved under this Agreement.
3. Any failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in this Agreement unless approved by the Program Manager in writing.
K. AMBAG may, as it deems appropriate or necessary, require the repayment of funds from a Grantee, or pursue any other remedies available to it by law for failure to comply with all REAP 2.0 Program requirements or breach of this agreement.
L. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to AMBAG in law or equity for breach of this Agreement, AMBAG may at its discretion, exercise a variety of remedies, including but not limited to:
1. Revoke existing REAP 2.0 award(s) to the Grantee;
2. Require the return of unexpended REAP 2.0 funds disbursed under this Agreement;
3. Require repayment of REAP 2.0 Funds disbursed and expended under this Agreement;
4. Seek a court order for specific performance of the obligation defaulted upon, or the appointment of a receiver to complete the obligations in accordance Packet Page 72
with the REAP 2.0 Program requirements; and
5. Other remedies available at law, by and through this Agreement. All remedies available to AMBAG are cumulative and not exclusive.
6. AMBAG may give written notice to the Grantee to cure the breach or violation within a period of not less than 15 calendar days.
M. The Grantee may be subject to amendment of this section as a result of subsequent applications and awards.
N. AMBAG and the Grantee are fully committed to working with each other throughout the Term of this Agreement and agree to communicate regularly with each other at all times so as to avoid and minimize disputes. AMBAG and the Grantee agree to act in good faith to prevent and resolve potential sources of conflict before they escalate into a question or controversy. AMBAG and the Grantee each commit to resolving such dispute in an amicable, professional, and expeditious manner and agree to use the following procedure for resolving the dispute: (a) either party may give notice to the other of the dispute and will meet within three (3) business days to attempt to resolve the dispute; (b) a meeting or meetings shall be promptly between the representatives of the parties regarding the dispute to attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute; (c) if within thirty (30) days after a dispute has arisen, the parties have not succeeded in negotiating a resolution of the dispute, they agree to submit the dispute to mediation; (d) the mediator shall be jointly selected by the parties, or failing agreement on the selection of a mediator within thirty (30) days after the parties fail to negotiate an informal resolution of any dispute, the mediator shall be a retired judge or justice selected by the supervising judge of the Civil Division of the Monterey County California Superior Court. In any mediation conducted pursuant to this section, the provision of the California Evidence Code section 1152 shall be applicable to limit the admissibility of evidence disclosed by the parties in the course of the mediation; and € if the parties are not successful in resolving the dispute through the mediation, then the parties agree that the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration to a single arbitrator in accordance with the existing Rules of Practice of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) within thirty (30) days of the close of mediation as declared by the mediator.
O. In the event either party brings an action or proceeding for damages arising out of the other's performance under this Agreement or to establish the right or remedy of either party, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as part of such action or proceeding, whether or not such action or proceeding is prosecuted to judgment. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted according to California law, and any action to enforce the terms of this Packet Page 73
Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Monterey.
5. Reporting
A. At any time during the term of the Agreement, AMBAG may request a performance report that demonstrates satisfaction of all requirements identified in the Agreement with emphasis on eligible activities, eligible uses, and expenditures according to timelines and budgets referenced in the Agreement.
B. Reports shall include the following information:
1. The status of the Proposed Uses and expenditures listed in the Grantee’s applications for funding and progress of each proposed use toward all the objectives of the REAP 2.0 program as provided in the Guidelines and explained in the applications.
2. An explanation and quantification, where appropriate, of the progress achieved toward all of the objectives of the REAP 2.0 program, barriers and solutions for each Proposed Use that is consistent with and incorporates the metrics in the full application, including, but not limited to:
i. Housing units accelerated,
ii. Reductions in Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Capita,
iii. Location of investment,
iv. Socioeconomic statistics about the impacted geography, and v. Regional impact explanation
The report must identify whether proposed uses overlap with other programs that share the same objectives as REAP 2.0. The Grantee should also identify any measurement challenges that persist and highlight any administrative barriers that prevent it from obtaining the information it needs to perform better analysis of progress made achieving REAP 2.0 Objectives and make adjustments to the extent possible in subsequent reporting years.
C. Upon completion of all deliverables within the Agreement, the Grantee shall submit a close out report in a manner and form prescribed by AMBAG.
6. Indemnification
Neither AMBAG nor any officer, employee or designee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted by the Grantee, its officers, Packet Page 74
employees, agents, its contractors, its sub-recipients or its subcontractors under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction conferred upon the Grantee under this Agreement, Guidelines or Statute. It is understood and agreed that the Grantee shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless AMBAG and all of AMBAG’s staff from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought forth under, including, but not limited to, tortuous, contractual, inverse condemnation or other theories or assertions of liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the Grantee, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, sub-recipients, or subcontractors under this Agreement, Guidelines or Statute.
7. Waivers
No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. The failure of AMBAG to enforce at any time the provisions of this Agreement, or to require at any time, performance by the Grantee of these provisions, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor to affect the validity of this Agreement or the right of AMBAG to enforce these provisions.
8. Relationship of Parties
It is expressly understood that this Agreement is an agreement executed by and between two independent governmental entities and is not intended to, and shall not be construed to, create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship whatsoever other than that of an independent party.
9. Third Party Contracts
A. All REAP 2.0 related funded procurements must be conducted using a fair and competitive procurement process. The Grantee may use its own procurement procedures as long as the procedures comply with all City/County laws, rules and ordinances governing procurement, and all applicable provisions of California state law.
B. Any contract entered into as a result of this Agreement shall contain all the provisions stipulated in this Agreement and shall be applicable to the Grantee’s subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors. Copies of all agreements with subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors shall be submitted to AMBAG’s program manager.
C. AMBAG does not have a contractual relationship with the Grantee’s subrecipients, contractors, or subcontractors, and the Grantee shall be fully Packet Page 75
responsible for monitoring and enforcement of those agreements and all work performed thereunder.
10. Compliance with State and Federal Laws, Rules, Guidelines and Regulations A. The Grantee agrees to comply with all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, and all other matters applicable to the grant, the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors, and any other grant activity.
B. During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee assures that no otherwise qualified person shall be excluded from participation or employment, denied program benefits, or be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, age, disability, handicap, familial status, religion, or belief, under any program or activity funded by this contract, as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-20) and all implementing regulations, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and all implementing regulations.
C. The Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all agreements with its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, and shall include a requirement in all agreements that each of them in turn include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts they enter into to perform work under the REAP 2.0 Program.
D. The Grantee shall, in the course of performing project work, fully comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) E. The Grantee shall adopt and implement affirmative processes and procedures that provide information, outreach and promotion of opportunities in the REAP project to encourage participation of all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability. This includes, but is not limited to, a minority outreach program to ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women, and entities owned by minorities and women, as required by 24 CFR 92.351.
11. Litigation
A. If any provision of this Agreement, or an underlying obligation, is held invalid by a Packet Page 76
court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, at the sole discretion of AMBAG, shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Therefore, the provisions of this Agreement are, and shall be, deemed severable.
B. The Grantee shall notify AMBAG immediately of any claim or legal action undertaken by or against it, which affects or may affect this Agreement or AMBAG, and shall take such action with respect to the claim or legal action consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the interests of AMBAG.
12. Changes in Terms/Amendments
A. The Grantee may be subject to amendments to this section as a result of subsequent applications and awards.
B. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by mutual written agreement of both parties.
13. State-Owned Data
A. Definitions
1. Work:
The work to be directly or indirectly produced by the Grantee, its employees, or by and of the Grantee’s contractor’s, subcontractor’s and/or sub-recipient’s employees under this Agreement.
2. Work Product:
All deliverables created or produced from Work under this Agreement including, but not limited to, all Work and deliverables conceived or made or, hereafter conceived or made, either solely or jointly with others during the term of this Agreement and during a period of six months after the termination thereof, which relates to the Work commissioned or performed under this Agreement, are considered Work Product. Work Product includes all deliverables, inventions, innovations, improvements, or other works of authorship Grantee and/or Grantee’s contractor subcontractor and/or sub-recipient may conceive of or develop in the course of this Agreement, whether or not they are eligible for patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other legal protection.
B. Sharing of Work Product and Rights
Packet Page 77
All Work Product shall be shared with AMBAG and its partners for various purposes, including education, outreach, transparency and future learning.
14. Special Conditions
AMBAG reserves the right to add any special conditions to this Agreement it deems necessary to assure that the policy and goals of the Program are achieved.
15. Term
This Memorandum of Understanding shall end on March 31, 2027. ___________________________
Date: _____________
Maura F. Twomey
Executive Director
____________________________
Date: ______________
Jaime M. Fontes
City Manager
City of Seaside
Packet Page 78
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.J.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Andrew Myrick, Economic Development & Community Planning Manager DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: APPROVE THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
FOR THE CREATION OF A CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION
PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the climate action and adaptation plan request for proposal release.
BACKGROUND
In 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution 17-47, committing the City to a series of principles regarding climate change. The City further undertook several of the tasks identified in that Resolution, including creating an inventory of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These documents are both attached to this Report.
Climate change has continued to worsen in the intervening years, with July 2023 bring the hottest year on record for global temperatures. The proposed RFP would assist the City to identify a consultant to develop a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).
The purpose of the CAAP would be for the City to identify steps the City can take to reduce its carbon footprint and mitigate risks from climate change (such as increased storm intensity, seas level rise, etc.).
The RFP would seek consultants to perform the following:
- Conduct community and stakeholder outreach
- Perform an assessment related to the City vulnerability to climate change - Update the City's current GHG Inventory and prepare an emission forecast under a "business-as-usual" scenario.
- Develop a strategy for the City to reduce its carbon footprint and present this as a matrix.
Packet Page 79
Item No. 8.J. Page 2 of 2
- Develop a plan to implement the identified strategy
- Draft the CAAP document and prepare any analysis required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The consultant would also be responsible for project management.
Responses to the RFP will be evaluated by staff based on a scoring rubric included in the RFP.
FISCAL IMPACT
If successful this RFP will result in a contract with a consultant to perform the activities described therein. The costs of this contract are unknown. Funds have been budgeted to cover the costs of this effort. A contract that includes all associated costs will be brought to Council prior to its execution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. CAAP RFP Resolution
2. Exhibit A RFP for CAAP
3. City Council Resolution 17-47 climate science
4. City of Seaside 2020 Community-wide GHG Inventory Report Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 80
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
APPROVING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) TO DEVELOP A CLIMATE
ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN (CAAP) AND DIRECTING CITY STAFF
TO RELEASE THE RFP
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2017, the Seaside City Council adopted Resolution 17-47 to commit itself to a series of principals established by the US Conference of Mayors to stave off climate change as well as identifying specific actions to reduce the City’s carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS, since 2017, climate change has continued to worsen, with July 2023 being the hottest month ever recorded for global temperatures; and WHEREAS, climate change poses a significant threat to the health and safety of the residents of Seaside though increased risks of natural disasters such as wildfire, flooding, storms, and extreme heat; and
WHEREAS, The City Council desires to better understand the City’s climate impacts as well as identify concrete steps that the City can take to mitigate those impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to identify a qualified consultant to assist the City in conducting a citywide assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and to identify actionable steps that the City can take to reduce its carbon footprint as well as mitigate risks associated with climate change.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the RFP attached hereto as Exhibit A and directs staff to release the RFP to identify a consultant to assist in the development of a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, on the 21st day of September 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Packet Page 81
______________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
Attach:
Exhibit A – Request for Proposals for Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Packet Page 82
1 City of Seaside, CA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
CLIMATE ACTION & ADAPTATION PLAN
Issue Date: September 29,
2023
Submittal Deadline: October 30, 2023 at 5pm
Packet Page 83
2 Table of Contents
Contents
I. Introduction..................................................................................................................3 I.A. What We Are Looking for in a Proposal?.....................................................................3 I.B. RFP Contacts – Limitation on Communications .........................................................5 II. Scope of Work and Oversight ....................................................................................5 II.A. Project Organization...................................................................................................5 II.B. Proposed Project Summary of Deliverables ............................................................8 II.C. Project Goals.............................................................................................................10 Task 1: Project Orientation and Management................................................................................10 Task 2: Stakeholder Education and Engagement Plan.................................................................11 Task 3: Climate Change Community Assessment ........................................................................13 Task 4: Inventory Analysis and Forecast .......................................................................................14 Task 5: Development of GHG Reduction Targets & Proposed List of Mitigation and Adaptation Measures ...........................................................................................................................................16 Task 6: Develop Implementation Plan ............................................................................................17 Task 7: Develop Draft and Final Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)…………………. 18 Task 8: CEQA Compliance...............................................................................................................18 II.E. City Project Team ...........................................................................................................19 III. Technical Proposal Format.......................................................................................19 III.A. Vendor Background and Company Qualifications ................................................19 III.B. Introduction and Executive Summary.....................................................................20 III.C. Response to Scope of Work ....................................................................................20 III.D. Evaluation..................................................................................................................21 III.E. Packaging ..................................................................................................................22 III.F. Timing ........................................................................................................................22 III.G. Submittal....................................................................................................................22 IV. RFP Distribution ........................................................................................................23 Packet Page 84
3 I. Introduction
I.A. What We Are Looking for in a Proposal?
The City of Seaside is seeking a qualified consultant or team of consultants to provide facilitation, technical, and design services for the development and approval of a Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The CAAP will serve as the roadmap for the City to equitably achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2050, or sooner.
Environmental Achievements
The City of Seaside (the “City” or “Seaside”) has shown its commitment to sustainability through the implementation and initiation of a variety of sustainability projects: LED streetlights, electric vehicle charging stations for the city fleet, facility lighting LED upgrades at 12 city facilities, City Hall solar canopy and panels, installation of water refilling stations in city facilities, water heater electrification at six city facilities, and a variety of other projects which seek to foster economic vibrancy and sustainable living. Additionally, Seaside is committed to making sustainability one its highest priorities and has be recognized for the following Beacon Spotlight awards:
▪ Agency Energy Savings (electricity) Gold Level 16% (2018) ▪ Silver Level Agency Energy Savings 8% reduction (2017) ▪ Platinum Level Agency Energy Savings 29% (2020).
▪ Community Greenhouse Gas Reductions Platinum Level, 20% (2017) In 2018, Seaside established the Environmental Commission investigate and advocate for sound environmental policy and action, as well as outreach and education on climate change for Seaside residents. Complementary to this effort is the development of a new CAAP to assess the impact of climate change and create climate change adaptation solutions.
Our Challenge
Seaside recognizes that climate-related issues do not affect members of the community equally. Some community members are disproportionately affected by negative climate impacts. As Seaside continues to reflect on and address equity, it is critical that a social equity component be integrated into the CAAP together with climate change mitigation and adaptation directives. The City expects to engage the community in the development of the CAAP to assist the City in outlining the social, economic, and environmental benefits of implementing the CAAP and to establish ways to ensure equitable distribution of these benefits to the City’s minority-majority population.
Through this CAAP, Seaside seeks to:
Packet Page 85
4 • Develop a pathway to deliver an emissions neutral city by 2050 or sooner and set out methodologies for prioritizing transformational actions,
• Demonstrate how Seaside will adapt and improve its resilience to climate change that impacts the City now and respond to future climate change scenarios,
• Engage with the community to communicate the climate challenges, and identify opportunities for change in response to these challenges, • Engage with the community in the CAAP development, and outline social, environmental, and economic benefits expected from implementing the plan, including designing inclusive climate actions with a fair and equitable distribution of benefits,
• Detail the City’s governance, powers, and capacity, as well as identify the partners who need to be engaged to accelerate the delivery of the City’s mitigation targets and resilience goals, • Establish a set of cohesive sustainability strategies, implementation measures, and metrics for measuring progress and success across the City organization; and,
• Identify synergies between mitigation and adaptation strategies to leverage City resources and budgets.
Our Values
The guiding principles or values for the CAAP shall be based on the principles defined by the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UNHabitat) and embody the following characteristics: ambitious, inclusive, fair, comprehensive and integrated, relevant, actionable, evidence-based, transparent, and verifiable.
Ambitious: Setting goals and implementing actions that evolve iteratively towards an ambitious vision.
Inclusive: Involving multiple city government departments, stakeholders, and communities with particular attention to marginalized groups, in all phases of planning and implementation.
Fair: Seeking solutions that equitably address the risks of climate change and share the costs and benefits of action across the city.
Comprehensive and Integrated: Coherently undertaking adaptation and mitigation actions across a range of sectors within the city, as well as supporting broader regional initiatives and the realization of priorities of higher levels of government when possible and appropriate.
Relevant: Delivering local benefits and supporting local development priorities.
Actionable: Proposing cost-effective actions that can realistically be Packet Page 86
5 implemented by the actors involved, given local mandates, finances, and capacities.
Evidence-based: Reflecting scientific knowledge and local understanding and using assessments of vulnerability and emissions and other empirical inputs to inform decision-making.
Transparent and Verifiable: Following an open decision-making process and setting goals that can be measured, reported, independently verified, and evaluated.
I.B. RFP Contacts – Limitation on Communications
Commencing from the date the City Council approves issuance of this RFP, and unless expressly authorized in this RFP, any contact or any communications with City officials other than the City Contact is expressly prohibited. The limitation on communications shall continue until the date on which the City awards a contract, if any.
In addition, proposers must not directly or indirectly give, furnish, donate, or promise any money, compensation, gift, gratuity, or anything of value to the Seaside City Council or any City employee for the purpose of, or which has the intent or effect of:
1. Securing or establishing an advantage over other proposers;
2. Securing or recommending the selection of the proposer’s proposal; or
3. Securing or recommending a Contract award to any Proposer.
Violation of the forgoing prohibitions will constitute grounds for rejection of a proposal(s). Such rejection may be made within the sole and absolute discretion of the City of Seaside.
All communications, including questions, with the City Contact shall be made via email. Communications made via other means will not be returned and may result in disqualification. The City Contact for this RFP is:
Andrew Myrick
Economic Development and Community Planning Manager
440 Harcourt Ave.
Seaside, CA 93955
Email: [email protected]
II. Scope of Work and Oversight
II.A. Project Organization
The City of Seaside seeks to develop an original CAAP that envisions an equitable and sustainable future through a bold, innovative, and inclusive vision Packet Page 87
6 enabling the successful achievement of carbon emission reductions.
The City invites consultants to utilize elements which incorporate innovation and creativity to delivering a top value CAAP. The plan will set the desired Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals. It should include shorter ambitious, science-based targets for 2030 and a net zero emissions target by 2050, and provide a framework to track and monitor the progress of strategic measures. It should also keep equity at the forefront with an emphasis placed on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
Additionally, with assistance from City staff, the Consultant will engage external stakeholders to obtain widespread support and buy-in for the CAAP, ensuring inclusivity of the plan development process. External stakeholders should include but not be limited to:
• Local businesses, property owners, and renters.
• Non-profit groups.
• Local institutions such as schools, higher educational institutions, hospitals/community health facilities and cultural institutions.
The CAAP should:
• Develop a current GHG Inventory based on latest available data to measure the City’s progress in reducing GHG emissions,
• Incorporate innovative strategies and solutions for both climate action and adaptation,
• Outline the current climate challenges in Seaside’s communities, and the opportunities for climate and greenhouse gas reduction goals,
• Serve as a mechanism to tie together the City’s existing and developing sustainability initiatives, strategies and plans with the community’s goals,
• Establish a set of cohesive sustainability strategies, implementation plans and metrics for measuring progress, and for improving Seaside’s sustainability and its contribution to regional and state strategies and initiatives,
• Activate and engage residents, businesses, and institutions with positive actions and tangible benefits,
• Prepare a qualified CAAP that may be used for future tiering and project streamlining.
The CAAP must utilize, align with, conform to, and as applicable, comply with the following:
• Senate SB-32, Executive Order B-30-15 and other Relevant Packet Page 88
7 State Legislation and Executive Orders as appropriate • City Plans
• California Environmental Quality Act
• Climate Mayors
• Urban Environmental Accords
Packet Page 89
8 II.B. Proposed Project Summary of Deliverables
The table below shows the summary of deliverables.
Task Deliverables
Task 1: Project
Orientation and
Management
1. Project Work Plan, including final scope of work,
deliverables, and timeline with key milestones
2. Project organizational chart and contact list
3. List of City meeting dates and
Council/Commission update sessions
Task 2: Stakeholder
Education and
Engagement Plan
1. Stakeholder Engagement Plan with timelines,
milestones, and an evaluation matrix
2. Provide support materials and graphics appropriate
to each meeting
3. Visualize equitable CAAP efforts using engaging
digital media
4. Coordinate with City staff prior to each meeting to
determine roles and approach to meeting
discussions
Task 3: Climate Change
Community Assessment
1. A climate vulnerability assessment
2. A plan to involve stakeholder input and
collaboration
3. An assessment of vulnerable communities, and equity
as a criterion for all actionable items in the final CAAP Task 4: Inventory
Analysis and Forecast
1. Reconcile and update previous Municipal and
Community GHG Inventories
2. Update emission forecast under business-asusual models Task 5: Development of
GHG Reduction Targets
and Proposed List of
Mitigation and
Adaptation Measures
1. Draft strategy climate mitigation and adaptation
matrix and evaluation criteria
2. Review mitigation and adaptation strategies with
internal and external stakeholders including City
Departments and City Council
Packet Page 90
9 Task Deliverables
Task 6:
Develop
Implementation
Plan
1. Develop an implementation plan that includes GHG
reductions and climate
adaption strategies
Task 7: Develop Draft
and Final Climate
Action and
Adaptation Plan
(CAAP)
1. Draft version of a CAAP
2. Presentation of CAAP development and final CAAP
to City Council and relevant Commissions
3. Final CAAP, presented as a PDF
Task 8: California
Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Compliance
1. If necessary, prepare a CEQA compliant
environmental report that has gone through the
necessary steps for analysis, publication, including
circulation for public review and finalization per public comments and City staff feedback
2. If necessary/feasible, complete all necessary
environmental review documents for preparing the
“qualified’ CAAP for project tiering and streamlining
Packet Page 91
10 II.C. Project Goals
This process will result in a CAAP that details a prioritized set of equitable climate actions with specific implementation roadmaps that guide the City’s climate action over the coming years. A clear roadmap is critical for the City successfully take steps to be climate-ready, carbon-neutral and emissions resilient by 2050. Resilience should be addressed within the CAAP in accordance with SB-379. This CAAP will also seek to empower residents to carry out community-level action in support of Seaside’s climate goals.
The CAAP shall be reader friendly and “tell the story” of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies to be implemented by heavily employing the use of data visualizations and graphic design.
The CAAP should include procedures for minor updates every two years and comprehensive reviews every five years.
The scope of work for the Consultant team shall consist of the following tasks, which the City may modify in collaboration with the selected Consultant. All activities will be undertaken in close coordination with the City of Seaside.
Task 1: Project Orientation and Management
Task 1 includes engaging with City staff and stakeholders to refine and finalize the scope of work and work plan and to identify existing relevant background documents and data. The City will provide the Consultant with relevant data; host a project kickoff, orientation meeting and workshop; and introduce the Consultant team to key stakeholders, to City Staff, and to the various City Commissions.
The Consultant will be responsible for the following actions and deliverables:
• Project planning and coordination with other consultants, technical advisors and advisory bodies.
• Coordination with City staff and community stakeholders, • Integration of technical analyses,
• Strategy development,
• Development of tracking tools,
• Final compilation and graphic design of the CAAP.
• Developing a Project Work Plan, including final scope of work, deliverables, and timeline with key milestones
• Providing a Project organizational chart and contact list • Consultant shall attend up to fifteen (15) meetings/public hearings with City staff, Boards and Commissions and community meetings/engagement venues. The Consultant shall provide additional per meeting costs
Packet Page 92
11 The Consultant will present elements of the CAAP to various City commissions as applicable, and to the City Council at key project milestones. Ongoing project management meetings will occur biweekly or by otherwise regular check-in calls with the City’s project management team. The Consultant shall provide monthly status reports (and invoices to keep the City and its advisory bodies up to date on the CAAP development process and cost.)
Task 2: Stakeholder Education and Engagement Plan
Stakeholder engagement and consultation are critical for understanding equitable approaches to climate solutions, as well as garnering widespread support and buy-in for the CAAP. Engagement is essential to produce a CAAP that is just, effective, and trusted by stakeholders. This trust and participation with the community shall lead to optimal engagement in delivering on the CAAP. The aim is to have a CAAP that is informed by consultations with government, business and civil society stakeholders.
The Consultant shall propose a stakeholder engagement process geared towards generating action-specific implementation roadmaps. The Consultant will work with the City to develop a community engagement plan and will provide support for materials and event development. The stakeholder engagement plan shall detail the stakeholders, their roles in preparing the CAAP, and their space in an equitable landscape. It shall also detail activities to obtain feedback from community groups, organizations and individuals. The CAAP shall specify timelines and milestones for community events, activities and processes. Attention should be given to proposing marketing strategies and facilitation methods to ensure the multicultural communities of Seaside are engaged. The CAAP shall include evaluation methods to measure stakeholder engagement, demonstrating that a wide range of stakeholders are aware of and informed about the development of the CAAP.
Stakeholder Outreach
Consultant will work with City staff to raise awareness about and solicit input on the CAAP through a variety of community outreach efforts. Consultant shall attend and participate in public engagement events, which may include, but are not limited to development of a brand campaign; surveys; pop-up booths; information sessions and speaker series; charrettes; religious organization/outreach; community workshops; social media campaigns including project webpage creation and updates; neighborhood meetings; coordination/collaboration with other City projects and events; or any other methods deemed valuable by the City or Consultant. Stakeholder outreach may be inperson, conducted virtually, or as virtual-hybrid meetings/workshops.
Packet Page 93
12 The Consultant shall consider ways to gather input from different populations and areas within the City. The Consultant should also consider the use of innovative interactive simulation tools for stakeholder engagement, such platforms include but not limited to:
a. En-ROADS freely available policy simulation model
(https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/)
b. Google Environmental Insights Explorer (https://insights.sustainability.google/) c. Climate View (https://www.climateview.global/)
Stakeholder Groups
Sustainability Working Group: This group will provide feedback on current operational procedures influencing the City’s GHG emissions reduction, the potential areas for improvement and opportunities to shape and implement climate policy within the City.
Information from this group will be utilized to inform education and programs for outreach to the public.
This working group may include representatives from:
• Economic Development and Community Planning
• Parks & Recreation
• Finance Department
• Fire Department
• Public Works
External Stakeholders: The External Stakeholder group will contain members of the community, civic and advocacy group leaders, development and design professionals, environmental advocacy representatives, energy representatives, residents, and the business community. Subject matter areas for discussion with the external stakeholders should include, but are not limited to:
• Assessing the group’s knowledge of and current attitude toward climate change and the role of equity in climate challenges and solutions • Informing and gathering feedback from the groups on potential options for climate mitigation and adaptation
• Collecting information on the best methods of communicating the CAAP and its benefits to the community
• Presenting options on potential actions by the community to assist with equitable CAAP implementation
• Promoting desirable behavioral changes within the community Deliverables:
1. Stakeholder Engagement Plan with timelines, milestones, and an evaluation matrix
2. Provide support materials and graphics appropriate to each meeting Packet Page 94
13 3. Visualize equitable CAAP efforts using engaging digital media
4. Coordinate with City staff prior to each meeting to determine roles and approaches to meeting discussions
Task 3: Climate Change Community Assessment
Consultant will use science-based processes to link climate projections to specific and locally relevant climate change risks to the community. They will identify, categorize, and prioritize risks across all sectors of the community based on exposure (assessed using climate change projections), sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. The focus on equitable climate actions is expected to transcend all aspects of the CAAP beyond the deliverables asked for in this task alone.
Vulnerability Assessment
The City wants the CAAP to be equitable for everyone in Seaside. In order to accomplish this goal the Consultant shall perform a “vulnerability assessment” to determine specific sensitivities across population types, infrastructure types, services, and natural resources. The vulnerability assessment shall examine:
• Disadvantaged communities and potential negative effects on communities caused by external stresses on human health and safety
• Extreme weather-resilient development
• Infrastructure, including:
o Transportation
o Utilities/Energy
o Water
o Buildings and facilities
• Natural resources, including:
o Environmental resources
o Natural habitat
o Recreation and open spaces.
• Socioeconomic resources, including:
o Public health
o Economy
o Cultural resources
o Social systems/human services
The Consultant will utilize the Monterey County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan:
Quantitative & Qualitative Assessment of Risks
Understanding potential risks due to climate change is critical to future planning efforts.
Packet Page 95
14 The Consultant will develop an assessment of quantitative and qualitative risks to the community developed within the context of providing equity to those in the community who are most vulnerable to changes in the environment, which assessment shall include:
• Local climate change projections using the latest models, from reputable sources (one of these two):
o Scenario planning – creating climate storylines to help planners develop strategies that work across different possible future conditions o Bracketing – looking at 3-4 models that represent local projects of hotter, less hot, wetter, and drier extremes, as well as a middle ground • Historic trends, future projects, and extreme events specific to the community.
Communication materials for laypeople that explain projections and analyses, how to use them, how to manage uncertainty, and what they mean at the local level.
Community Stakeholder Collaboration
All climate discussions in Seaside are to be framed in context of its relevance to our community. The Consultant will address and attempt to tie solutions to ongoing chronic community challenges, such as poverty, houselessness, unemployment, natural disasters, health issues, access to resources, or pollution in the planning process. The Consultant will develop this assessment using a highly collaborative and cross-sector process and will hold one or more workshops that engage local spokespersons and experts from all community sectors to identify and prioritize vulnerabilities, including:
• Built community systems (buildings, roads, water, energy, etc.) • Social community systems (health, emergency response, vulnerable populations, etc.)
• Cultural community systems (native American tribes, minority or disadvantaged communities, etc.)
• Economic community systems (tourism, agriculture, technology, and other economic drivers)
• Natural community systems (aquatic, terrestrial ecosystems; endangered species)
Deliverables:
1. A climate vulnerability assessment
2. A clear quantitative and qualitative outline of risks posed by a changing climate
3. A plan to involve stakeholder input and collaboration throughout the development of the CAAP, emphasizing communities identified during the vulnerability assessment
Task 4: Inventory Analysis and Forecast
Measurement is critical to effective greenhouse gas (GHG) management. As the City of Packet Page 96
15 Seaside moves toward a low-carbon city, it is imperative to keep track of GHG emissions. GHG inventories quantify the amount of GHGs an organization emits into the atmosphere and are critical to management. GHG inventories enable the City to identify emission sources and track changes over time. Information presented in the GHG inventory can help inform strategies and prioritize actions to reduce emissions, as well as provide benchmarks against which the success of these activities can be measured.
The Consultant shall provide the following forecast analyses in order to help the City better understand and manage GHG emissions:
Current GHG Inventory
The most recent GHG Inventories should be reviewed and incorporated. The Consultant should review existing Community and Municipal inventory data and update as necessary. The Consultant shall develop current inventory data to measure the City’s progress in reducing GHG emissions against the baseline.
Business-as-Usual GHG Emission Forecast
The Consultant shall develop a set of business-as-usual (BAU) GHG emission forecasts for community and municipal government operations through 2050. This analysis should include different emission sources (e.g. like “wedges”) consisting of but not limited to energy, transportation, land use, water, wastewater and solid waste organized into scopes as defined by protocols. Analyses should also include evaluation and impact summary of the state and federal policies and programs on GHG emission reductions and incorporate those into this task as appropriate.
Community and City Government operations GHG inventories should be developed using the methodology based upon:
• The Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emissions (GPC), developed by the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, in collaboration with World Bank, UNEP, UNHABITAT, and World Resources Institute
• The Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) developed by the California Air Resources Board, Climate Action Reserve, The Climate Registry and ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability.
The Consultant may utilize another methodology if sufficient recommendations and justifications are provided to support doing so.
Deliverables:
1. Reconcile and update previous Municipal and Community GHG Inventories
2. Update emission forecast under business-as-usual models Packet Page 97
16 Task 5: Development of GHG Reduction Targets & Proposed List of Mitigation and Adaptation Measures
Based on the findings from Tasks 3 and 4, the Consultant shall identify action items to reduce GHG emissions. These actions should be realistic but aspirational.
The analysis should include results from the GHG inventories, projection, and reduction targets for all sectors of the community, including, but not limited to: energy, water, waste, transportation, and buildings. The analysis shall also take stakeholder input into account.
Goal Setting
The Consultant shall lead the City and stakeholders through the goal setting process for new GHG targets. They shall include information from:
• Results of the GHG inventories
• Climate Change Community Assessment
• Vulnerability Assessment
• Stakeholder input
Goal setting to identify GHG emissions reduction targets shall align with statewide goals set by California SB-32 and Executive Order B-55-18, SB100, SB 1383, and other legislation as appropriate. Goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and City of Seaside commitments such as the Race to Zero shall also be included to inform the development of reduction targets.
CAAP Strategy Selection
Based on the findings of Tasks 3 and 4, the Consultant will work with City departments and the community to develop a draft matrix of sector-based emission mitigation and climate adaptation strategies for community and municipal operations to meet the goals set forth in this section. Measures must be broken down by the following:
• Mitigation
• Adaptation
• Resilience
The development of strategies shall include, but not be limited to, application to the following resource and service areas: transportation, land use, energy use, water reduction, water use, waste, carbon sequestration, include current and emerging climate threats and community behavior characteristics.
In working with various City Departments that are already in the process of implementing GHG emissions reductions strategies, the Consultant shall utilize Packet Page 98
17 innovative interactive simulation tools, referred to in Task 2, to identify the most cost efficient and feasible set of strategies for reaching the carbon neutrality targets, and other goals, under different investments and assumptions. The CAAP strategies should be populated with BAU and other emissions scenarios to support strategy selection, generate graphics that effectively depict various metrics, including net present value of various strategy sets. The CAAP strategies should include a User Guide and be provided to the City for ongoing scenario-assessment.
The CAAP strategies shall include clear key performance indicators (KPIs) to illustrate how each community sector can meet the City’s GHG reduction goals for overall carbon neutrality. The Consultant is expected to develop a prioritization matrix for all the selected mitigation and adaptation actions. The prioritization matrix shall include GHG reduction potentials, cost per metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent avoided or reduced, return on investment, co-benefits, timelines, equity impacts and other considerations, responsible parties for implementation.
The guiding principles and co-benefits should help guide the proposed goals, strategies, and actions in the CAAP. Reduction targets, strategies and measures should be clearly stated and easily tracked. The Consultant shall specify quantified projected emissions reductions, cost, and co-benefits for the proposed actions and strategies.
Deliverables:
1. Draft strategy climate mitigation and adaptation matrix and evaluation criteria
2. Review mitigation and adaptation strategies with internal and external stakeholders including City Departments and City Council Task 6: Develop Implementation Plan
The Consultant shall prepare a detailed Municipal and Community Implementation Plan (MCIP) through which the CAAP goals and objectives may be put into practice.
The MCIP should include near-term, and long-term mitigation actions, and adaptation strategies including the identification of external agencies, internal City departments and departmental divisions responsible for regulating, overseeing and implementing CAAP action steps, and as a practical matter should identify required staff and staff time necessary to implement these actions.
Consultant shall work with City staff to identify and map any MCIP strengths and weaknesses with respect to implementation and funding, as well as structural and policy barriers to implementing the MCIP and achieving its goals.
Packet Page 99
18 Deliverables:
1. Develop an Implementation Plan that includes GHG reductions and climate adaption strategies
Task 7: Develop Draft and Final Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) CAAP Document
The Consultant shall complete preparation of the Draft CAAP, the Final CAAP and all the processes and activities up to and including presentation of the CAAP to City Boards and Commissions and to the City Council for final adoption. The Consultant shall develop a draft CAAP that incorporates the activities and deliverables identified in Tasks 1-6.
The Consultant is responsible for the design of the CAAP, and will provide a draft CAAP for City review upon completion. Following required consultation and draft CAAP review with stakeholders and the City, the Consultant shall incorporate all relevant feedback and prepare a Final CAAP for presentation to the City’s recommending and decision making bodies.
Engaging Digital Platform
To the greatest extent feasible, the final CAAP shall be made available to the public on digital platforms, and must be graphically appealing, supported with a dashboard and website, and shall be accessible to all interested readers.
Deliverables:
1. Draft version of a CAAP
2. Presentation of Draft CAAP and final CAAP to City Council and relevant Commissions
3. Final CAAP presented as a PDF.
Task 8: CEQA Compliance
The CAAP must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and any other applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). In consultation with the City, the Consultant shall prepare, or arrange for the preparation of all appropriate environmental documents, including drafts and final documents, and all required noticing, publication, and circulation of the environmental document for the CAAP. The selected consultant will complete the CEQA review, following the guidelines established by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Section 15183.5(b), “Plans for the reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” requirements. For more information visit the OPR CEQA and Climate Change webpage (http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/climate-change.html). The CAAP must Packet Page 100
19 complete CEQA review, following OPR’s guidelines, so that it can be used for future project streamlining.
Deliverables:
1. If necessary, prepare a CEQA/NEPA compliant environmental review of a qualified CAAP for the City’s review and approval/certification. The environmental document shall include all supporting studies and shall comply with all required noticing, publication, and public review processes.
II.E. City Project Team
The City project team will consist of members of various City Departments, including the Public Works, Fire, Economic Development and Community Planning, and other Departments.
III. Technical Proposal Format
Please note that brevity is appreciated in the submittal of responses. Responses to this RFP should not exceed 25 pages in length. Please note that all proposals will become public record after the City approves a contract with the selected consultant. Do not submit confidential information in your Proposal. Please contact Andrew Myrick to discuss the submission of confidential or propriety information.
III.A. Vendor Background and Company Qualifications
Proposers shall describe their organization size, structure, project history, and work strategy and philosophy. Proposers should focus their proposals on demonstrating their ability to be the right partner on this project, identify any subcontractors, and explain how use of subcontractor(s) would improve the Proposer’s ability to fulfill the mission of this Project.
Responsive submittals should provide evidence that specifically demonstrates the Proposer currently has the following:
• Solid experience (in years) in preparing and implementing sustainability and climate action surveys, outreach, and CAAPs (how many) to California municipalities (identify the Cities and provide contact information). • Specific knowledge of climate change indicators for California. • Outstanding written and oral communication skills.
• Specific experience implementing outreach strategies for “climate-ready” community engagement.
• Solid record of submitting project deliverables for previous climate action plans in a timely manner.
• Ability to immediately commence work on this Project with the full complement of dedicated staff the Proposer represents will be available to work on this Project Packet Page 101
20 for its complete duration.
• Ability to comply with the insurance requirements of and the terms and provisions of the City’s Professional Services Agreement/Contract.
III.B. Introduction and Executive Summary
On the cover page or first page of your proposal, the following information must be provided:
• contact information, including name, title, address, email and phone number. • a brief introduction highlighting why you are qualified and would be a good partner for the City of Seaside.
III.C. Response to Scope of Work
Please describe your understanding of the scope of work, and how your team proposes to meet Seaside’s needs. This section is a critical component of the proposal and should include a detailed description of your proposed work plan, project schedule, and team organization. Minimum required contents of submittal:
1. Introduction & Summary of Proposer’s Project objectives, scope, & tasks
2. Description of Proposer’s Project approach and proposed Climate Action & Adaptation Plan with listed anticipated deliverables
3. Identification of Key Personnel Involved & Distribution of Work
4. Organizational Chart
5. Project Timeline
6. Example References of Past Climate Action or Sustainability Plans
7. Payment Schedule & Breakdown of Budget-based Tasks
A desirable candidate must provide all services and requirements described herein, and designate an employee to act as a key liaison for approval by the City for the duration of this project.
Statement of Insurance Compliance
Proposers shall state in their Proposals their willingness and ability to provide the required insurance coverage and Accord insurance form. Insurance requirements are listed in the Sample Contract (Section VII Insurance Requirements in their entirety are required to be submitted prior to the execution of Contract.) Minimum Requirement(s)
In addition to demonstrating that it meets the minimum requirements, Proposers shall affirm that it meets the minimum requirements by including the following statement: “I certify that I meet the minimum requirements of this RFP.” Proposals may be deemed non-responsive if these minimum requirement(s) are not met. The minimum Packet Page 102
21 requirements are defined in Section II Scope of Work and Oversight (entire section).
Key Personnel
Proposer shall provide the names, resumes, and a statement of qualifications of key personnel who are expected to be assigned to this project and shall identify their specific responsibilities and qualifications, proposed service, as well as highlight any other issues Proposers deems appropriate.
References
Proposer shall provide a minimum of three (3) references from different clients for engagements performed in the last five (5) years where the services provided were the same or similar in nature to the services requested herein. Proposer’s Reference Information should include:
• Client’s name, contact person, contact person’s responsibility and relationship to the project, address and telephone number
• A description of the type and extent of the services provided by the Proposer to the client
• Names of key personnel on Proposer’s team that participated in named • Projects and their specific responsibilities
• Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed)
• Total fees received (or projected)
• Total costs of completed Project
Sub Consultants List
Proposer shall submit a complete list of all sub consultants they intend to utilize in the provision of services requested in this solicitation.
Price Proposal
Proposer shall submit an hourly rate schedule if applicable. In addition, the Proposer shall submit an estimated annual cost of each of the tasks noted above.
III.D. Evaluation
In the review and evaluation period of proposals, the City will select a specific consultant or a group of consultants based on a comparison of skillsets and desired qualities. The scope of the project may be divided between multiple consultants or through partnerships with other vendors to collaborate and complete the CAAP.
The City has the right to issue separate contracts dependent upon proposer qualifications, and competency to complete different portions of the scope of work.
Packet Page 103
22 Criteria Maximum Points
Experience in sustainability-related projects or
plans, general plan development, climate action
plan development, carbon neutrality, community
engagement
30 Understanding of the project’s scope through the
proposed work plans, and adherence to schedule 20
Qualifications of project team 20
Value & cost efficiency of the plan 20
Flexibility, creativity, innovation 10
Total Points 100
III.E. Packaging
Completed proposals shall be submitted electronically via email Proposer’s name and address shall appear on all email submissions. All emails subject line should read “City of Seaside Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Proposal”
III.F. Timing
The table below shows the preliminary RFP Schedule. Dates are subject to change.
Any changes will be posted in an addendum that can be found on the City’s RFP website.
Action Date
RFP release September 29, 2023
Consolidated Q&A posted October 18, 2023
Deadline for proposals October 30, 2023
Consultant team interviews November 13-17, 2023
Contractor selected December 7, 2023
III.G. Submittal
Proposers shall also submit email copies of the Original Proposal in in a PDF or Word format. Together all the described materials are referred to as the “Submittal Package.”
Packet Page 104
23 Andrew Myrick, Economic Development
and Community Planning Manager,
City of Seaside,
440 Harcourt Ave.,
Seaside, CA 93955
[email protected]
Proposals are due no later than 12:00 pm Pacific Standard Time, October 30, 2023. Proposals received after the deadline will not be considered.
City will not be responsible for submittals that are late, lost, misdirected, or sent to an email address other than the address provided above.
Validity of Proposal
Responses to this RFP shall be valid for a minimum of twelve (12) months.
Submissions not valid for at least twelve (12) months will be considered nonresponsive. The Proposal shall expressly state the length of time for which the submitted Proposal shall remain valid.
IV. RFP Distribution
A prospective Consultant may receive this RFP by mail, e-mail, or online by contacting:
Andrew Myrick, Economic Development
and Community Planning Manager,
City of Seaside,
440 Harcourt Ave.,
Seaside, CA 93955
831-899-6830
[email protected]
Distribution of the RFP in no way represents the City’s acceptance of a Consultant’s Packet Page 105
24 qualifications, reputation, or ability to perform the Services.
Packet Page 106
RESOLUTION 17-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
RECOGNIZING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AND SEASIDE'S COMMITMENT TO
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION AND COMMITTS TO THE SERIES OF PRINCIPALS OF THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities' and
WHEREAS, International Science Academies including the United States National Academy of Science, the Russian Academy of Science, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, the Science Council of Japan and the Indian National Science Academy, among others, have jointly concluded "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": and
WHEREAS, the Paris Agreement adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change specifically identifies the importance of local governments in the role of environmental protection; and
WHEREAS, research from The United States Conference of Mayors states that cities comprise 91 % of the United States' Gross Domestic Product, placing cities at the center of jointly pursuing environmental stewardship and economic growth; and
WHEREAS, cities are already having to invest billions of dollars annually in infrastructure and suppo1t services to deal with climate change's impacts of heat waves, droughts, and torrential rain events; and
WHEREAS, a 2015 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed that aggressively combatting climate change would result in 12,000 fewer deaths in major U.S. cities due to extreme heat; up to $2.8 billion in avoided flooding costs; and $6.4 billion in avoided urban drainage costs by 2100; and
WHEREAS, it is increasingly important for cities to commit to doing their part on climate action via aggressive policies and programs that reduce our environmental footprint while promoting a 21st century economy,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Seaside recognizes the overwhelming body of scientific research which finds climate change to be real, and caused by human activities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Seaside herein commits itself to a series of principles embedded in the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, including:
I. Inventory global wanning emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan;
Packet Page 107
2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities;
3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car-pooling and public transit;
4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy;
5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city faci lities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money;
6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use;
7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system;
8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles;
9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water systems;
10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11 . Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and
12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global wanning pollution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Seaside City Council duly held on the 6th day of July 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
5 0
0 0
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Alexander, Campbell, Jones, Pacheco, Rubio COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Packet Page 108
City of Seaside
2020 Community-Wide
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
Packet Page 109
Packet Page 110
3 | City of Seaside
CITY OF SEASIDE 2020 COMMUNITY-WIDE
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) INVENTORY
PREPARED FOR:
The City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955
Phone: 831.899.6700
PREPARED BY:
The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940
Phone: 831.883.3750
Fax: 831.883.3755
FUNDED BY:
Central Coast Community Energy
JULY 2022
Packet Page 111
Packet Page 112
1 Executive Summary | City of Seaside
Executive Summary
The City of Seaside’s 2020 Community-wide GHG Inventory totals 163,924 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). This represents a 23 percent reduction from the 2005 Baseline Community-wide GHG Inventory. This decrease is the result of emission reductions across three sectors primarily. It is important to note that while analysis of GHG inventory data can identify the amount of change this type of analysis does not specifically identify the factors that contribute to the changes and their level of contribution. Certain general factors that are able to be identified are noted below, but it should be understood that these are only general contributing factors and not the sole factors responsible for the total GHG changes. The COVID 19 pandemic also had wide ranging impacts on energy consumption and transportation patterns which may have significantly impacted 2020 emissions. Figure 1 shows the 2005 to 2020 GHG emissions by sector.
In the residential sector, emission reductions of 36 percent occurred from 2005 to 2020. This can be attributed, in part, to the specific composition of electricity delivered by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) to include both more renewable energy and energy generated from large hydro operations in their energy mix during this time period. The transportation sector emissions decreased by 51 percent from 2005 to 2020. During this period there was a decrease in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and an increase in fuel efficiency. In the solid waste sector, an increase inn the actual tonnage of waste sent to landfills caused a 3 percent increase in emissions. In the commercial and industrial sector there was a 51 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 to 2020. This can be attributed, in part, to decreases in electricity and natural gas usage, as well as decreases in the GHG intensity of electricity.
Figure 1:
Packet Page 113
City 2
Table 1 summarizes the results of the 2005 Baseline Community-wide GHG Inventory, 2010 Community-wide GHG Inventory, 2015 Community-wide GHG Inventory, 2018 Community-wide GHG Inventory, 2019 Community-wide GHG Inventory, and 2020 Community-wide GHG Inventory, broken out by sectors. The percentage change from the 2005 inventory to the 2020 inventory is a reduction of 23 percent.
Table 1:
Community CO2e
Emissions by Sector Residential Commercial
/ Industrial Transportation Solid Waste Wastewater Total 2005 35,924 18,393 147,404 10,390 79 212,190
2010 34,732 21,351 135,103 7,143 84 198,413
2015 27,185 14,523 136,991 6,420 73 185,192
2018 21,820 8,773 141,558 7,588 71 179,810
2019 20,100 7,858 141,371 8,060 110 177,499
2020 22,845 8,928 121,373 10,677 101 163,924
% change 2005-2020 -36% -51% -18% 3% 28% -23%
Packet Page 114
3 Introduction | City of Seaside
2020 Community-wide GHG Inventory Report
Introduction
A community-wide GHG emissions inventory is an accounting of the GHG emissions that occur as the result of a community’s activities in a given year. GHG inventories can be used to determine the largest sources of GHG emissions from within a community, to set GHG emission reduction targets and to better understand how GHG emissions evolve across inventory years. The City of Seaside completed its 2005 Baseline Community-wide GHG Inventory as part of an Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) regional effort to develop the 2005 baseline GHG inventory reports for all of the AMBAG jurisdictions. Subsequently, the 2010 and 2015 GHG inventories for all AMBAG jurisdictions were also completed by AMBAG. Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) is now providing funding for AMBAG to complete three yearly Community-wide GHG inventories for all 3CE member jurisdictions. The 2018 inventory was completed in 2020, the 2019 inventory was completed in 2021 and the 2020 inventory is now being completed.
The Seaside 2005 Baseline, 2010, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2020 Community Wide GHG inventories have been completed by following the US Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions as per the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan.
The ICLEI ClearPath tool suite was used to perform the emissions calculations for all inventories in accordance with guidance from the Governor’s office of planning and research. Appendix A details the methodology used in this 2020 Community-wide GHG Inventory. A discussion of methodologies not included in this inventory but that are deemed of importance is included in Appendix B.
California’s Climate Change mandates
The State of California has adopted bold goals to reduce GHG emissions and address climate change. In order to meet these goals, the state supports local action on climate change by providing guidance for local jurisdictions to develop GHG emissions inventories and climate action plans. Local jurisdictions are required in many instances, and incentivized in others, to address greenhouse gas emissions under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), AB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), SB 375 (Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), SB 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit, 2016) and various California Executive orders, regulations, and programs.
As part of the effort to address climate Change the California Legislature has laid out clear GHG emissions reduction targets. AB 32 established a target of reducing GHG emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, which corresponds to a 15% reduction from 2005 level. SB 32 set a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Finally, Executive Order B-55-18, issued in 2018 by Jerry Brown, established a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining negative emissions in subsequent years.
Packet Page 115
City of Seaside | 2020 Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector 4 2020 Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector
Many local governments find a sector-based analysis most relevant to policymaking and project management, as it assists in formulating sector-specific reduction measures and climate action plan components. This inventory evaluates community emissions from the following sectors:
- Residential
- Commercial and Industrial
- Transportation
- Solid Waste
- Wastewater
The community of Seaside emitted 163,924 metric tons of CO2e in 2020. As visible in Figure 2 and Table 2, 74 percent of emissions are from the transportation sector, and were generated by on-road vehicle fuel consumption. Emissions from electricity and natural gas usage in the residential sector generated 13.9 percent of emissions, while energy consumption in the commercial sector generated 5.4 percent of emissions. The disposal of waste generated by Seaside residents and businesses caused 6.5 percent of total emissions. The remaining 0.1 percent of emissions was generated from wastewater treatment.
Figure 2:
Table 2:
2020 Community
Emissions by Sector Residential Commercial/ Industrial Transportation Solid Waste Wastewater Total CO2e (metric tons) 22,845 8,928 121,373 10,677 101 163,924 % of Total CO2e 13.9% 5.9% 74% 6.5% 0.1% 100%
Packet Page 116
5 2020 Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector | City of Seaside Built Environment: Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sector The City of Seaside’s built environment generated 19.3 percent of community-wide GHG emissions in 2020 or 31,773 metric tons of CO2e. Emissions were calculated using 2020 electricity and natural gas consumption data provided by PG&E and 3CE.
The residential sector accounted for 22,845 metric tons of CO2e and only includes emissions arising from the consumption of energy in residential buildings. The combined commercial and industrial sectors accounted for 8,928 metric tons of CO2e and include emissions arising from the consumption of energy in both commercial and industrial buildings. PG&E was not able to provide a breakdown between commercial and industrial energy usage due to the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) 15/15 rule1.
Figure 3 and Table 3 show the breakdown of natural gas to electricity emissions in Seaside’s built environment. The residential sector natural gas usage comprised 64 percent of emissions while the commercial and industrial sector natural gas comprised 20 percent of emissions.
Figure 3:
Table 3:
Natural Gas Use Emissions (CO2e): Electricity Use: Emissions (CO2e):
Commercial/Industrial Residential Commercial/Industrial Residential 6,421 20,406 2,507 2,439
1 The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the CPUC in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. If the number of customers in the compiled data is below 15, or if a single customer’s load is more than 15 percent of the total data, categories must be combined before the information is released.
Packet Page 117
City of Seaside | 2020 Community-wide GHG Emissions by Sector 6 Transportation Sector
As mentioned previously, The City of Seaside’s transportation sector generated 74 percent of community-wide GHG emissions in 2020, or 121,373 metric tons of CO2e. The transportation sector analysis includes emissions from vehicle use throughout Monterey County, with a portion of vehicle use attributed to each jurisdiction on a household basis. Emissions from air travel of Seaside’s residents were not included in the transportation sector analysis.
Solid Waste Sector
As mentioned previously, the solid waste sector accounted for 6.5 percent of community-wide GHG emissions in 2020 or 10,677 metric tons of CO2e. Emissions from the solid waste sector are an estimate of methane generation from the anaerobic decomposition of organic wastes (such as paper, food scraps, plant debris, wood, etc.) that are deposited in a landfill. Transportation emissions generated from the collection, transfer and disposal of solid waste are included in transportation sector GHG emissions.
Wastewater Sector
As mentioned previously, the wastewater sector accounted for 0.1 percent of community-wide GHG emissions in 2020 or 101 metric tons of CO2e. This sector accounts for the operation of wastewater treatment facilities used to treat Seaside’s wastewater. Emissions from the treatment of wastewater through septic tank systems are not included in this inventory.
Packet Page 118
7 Conclusion | City of Seaside
Conclusion
The City of Seaside has taken steps toward reducing its impact on the environment by quantifying its 2005 baseline community-wide GHG emissions and regularly updating the inventory in 2010, 2015, 2018,2019, and 2020. The City of Seaside has met the 2020 AB 32 GHG emissions reduction targets. This inventory will now allow the city to look ahead and chart a path towards meeting the SB 32 2030 GHG emissions reduction target as well as the 2045 carbon neutrality goal.
Using a comprehensive approach to calculate community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, this inventory can provide an important tool for the City of Seaside to create a Climate Action Plan.
Specifically, this inventory serves to:
• Identify the largest sources of communitywide emissions. • Identify remaining GHG inventorying needs
• Track changes to community emissions over time.
• Establish a guideline for setting future emissions reductions targets. • Evaluate progress towards emission reduction goals.
• Support the development, implementation and evaluation of strategies to reduce emissions
Packet Page 119
City of Seaside | Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector 8 Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector
This appendix, describes in detail the data sources and processes used to calculate emissions in this community-wide GHG inventory.
Overview of Inventory Contents and Approach
The community inventory describes emissions of the major greenhouse gases from the residential, commercial and industrial, transportation, solid waste, and wastewater sectors.
Emissions are calculated by multiplying activity data—such as kilowatt hours or VMT —by emissions factors, which provide the quantity of emissions per unit of activity. Activity data is typically available from electric and gas utilities, planning and transportation agencies, and air quality regulatory agencies. Emissions factors are drawn from a variety of sources, including PG&E, the Community protocol, and air quality models produced by CARB.
Built Environment Methodology: Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sectors
Data on electricity and natural gas sold by PG&E to customers as well as data on electricity sold by 3CE to customers was provided by PG&E and 3CE. In some instances most recent natural gas and electricity usage in certain customer categories were not provided by PG&E due to data privacy concerns. In these situations AMBAG assumed that electricity and natural gas usage in the city had the same rate of change as the entire county. The county-wide electricity and natural gas use rates of change were then used in combination with older city usage data in order to estimate current electricity and natural gas usage.
Electricity emissions were calculated in ICLEI’s ClearPath software using PG&E-specific emissions factors provided by PG&E as well as 3CE specific emissions factors provided by 3CE. Both PG&E and 3CE uses the Power Content Label (PCL) methodology to create the emissions factors for their electricity. All natural gas emissions were calculated in ClearPath with default emissions factors from the community protocol.
Transportation Sector Methodology
On-road transportation emissions were derived from the EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model developed by CARB. EMFAC 2021 is the tool used by CARB to conduct emissions inventories of on road mobile sources in California. For purposes of this inventory, AMBAG Sustainability Program staff ran the model for Monterey County leaving all default values in place. Staff then used household data from the California Department of Finance to portion out the County-wide VMT and associated CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions to each jurisdiction within the county. The VMT, CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions attributed to the City of Seaside were then entered into Clearpath in order to calculate the total CO2e emissions.
Packet Page 120
9 Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector | City of Seaside Solid Waste Sector Methodology
Emissions from solid waste were captured by estimating future emissions from decomposition of waste generated in the inventory year (“community-generated solid waste”). Communitygenerated solid waste emissions were calculated in ClearPath using waste disposal data obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System, which records tonnages of municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover by local jurisdiction.
As some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps, etc.) generate methane within the anaerobic environment of a landfill and others do not (e.g., metal, glass, etc.), it is important to characterize the various components of the waste stream. Waste characterization for community-generated solid waste was estimated using the CalRecycle 2003, 2008 and 2014 California statewide waste characterization study.
2 Most landfills capture methane emissions
either for energy generation or for flaring. The EPA estimates that 60 percent to 80 percent3 of total methane emissions are recovered at the landfills to which the City of Seaside sends its waste. Following the recommendation of the community protocol, AMBAG adopted a 75 percent methane recovery factor and a 10% oxidation rate.
Recycling and composting programs are reflected in the emissions calculations as reduced total tonnage of waste going to the landfills. The model, however, does not capture the associated emissions reductions in “upstream” energy use from recycling as part of the inventory.4 This is in-line with the “end-user” or “tailpipe” approach taken throughout the development of this inventory. It is important to note that recycling and composting programs can have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions when a full lifecycle approach is taken. Manufacturing products with recycled materials avoids emissions from the energy that would have been used during extraction, transportation and processing of virgin material.
Wastewater Sector Methodology
Wastewater coming from homes and businesses is rich in organic matter and has a high concentration of nitrogen and carbon (along with other organic elements). As wastewater is collected, treated, and discharged, chemical processes can lead to the creation and emission of two greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide. Emissions from wastewater treatment were calculated by first assessing the treatment steps used to transform Seaside’s wastewater. Staff then used the ClearPath tool and a population-based method to estimate treatment process emissions, in accordance with the methodology delineated in the US Community protocol. 2 CalRecycle Waste Characterization Studies available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/Study 3 AP 42, section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste, 2.4-6, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html 4 “Upstream” emissions include emissions that may not occur in your jurisdiction resulting from manufacturing or harvesting virgin materials and transportation of them.
Packet Page 121
City of Seaside | Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector 10 Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector
This appendix, describes in detail the data sources and processes used to calculate emissions in this community-wide GHG inventory.
Overview of Inventory Contents and Approach
The community inventory describes emissions of the major greenhouse gases from the residential, commercial and industrial, transportation, solid waste, and wastewater sectors.
Emissions are calculated by multiplying activity data—such as kilowatt hours or VMT —by emissions factors, which provide the quantity of emissions per unit of activity. Activity data is typically available from electric and gas utilities, planning and transportation agencies, and air quality regulatory agencies. Emissions factors are drawn from a variety of sources, including PG&E, the Community protocol, and air quality models produced by CARB.
Built Environment Methodology: Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sectors
Data on electricity and natural gas sold by PG&E to customers as well as data on electricity sold by 3CE to customers was provided by PG&E and 3CE. In some instances most recent natural gas and electricity usage in certain customer categories were not provided by PG&E due to data privacy concerns. In these situations AMBAG assumed that electricity and natural gas usage in the city had the same rate of change as the entire county. The county-wide electricity and natural gas use rates of change were then used in combination with older city usage data in order to estimate current electricity and natural gas usage.
Electricity emissions were calculated in ICLEI’s ClearPath software using PG&E-specific emissions factors provided by PG&E as well as 3CE specific emissions factors provided by 3CE. Both PG&E and 3CE use the Power Content Label (PCL) methodology to create the emissions factors for their electricity. All natural gas emissions were calculated in ClearPath with default emissions factors from the community protocol.
Transportation Sector Methodology
On-road transportation emissions were derived from the EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model developed by CARB. EMFAC 2021 is the tool used by CARB to conduct emissions inventories of on road mobile sources in California. For purposes of this inventory, AMBAG Sustainability Program staff ran the model for Monterey County leaving all default values in place. Staff then used household data from the California Department of Finance to portion out the County-wide VMT and associated CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions to each jurisdiction within the county. The VMT, CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions attributed to the City of Monterey were then entered into Clearpath in order to calculate the total CO2e emissions.
Packet Page 122
11 Appendix A: Inventory Methodology by Sector | City of Seaside Solid Waste Sector Methodology
Emissions from solid waste were captured by estimating future emissions from decomposition of waste generated in the inventory year (“community-generated solid waste”). Communitygenerated solid waste emissions were calculated in ClearPath using waste disposal data obtained from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Disposal Reporting System, which records tonnages of municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover by local jurisdiction.
As some types of waste (e.g., paper, plant debris, food scraps, etc.) generate methane within the anaerobic environment of a landfill and others do not (e.g., metal, glass, etc.), it is important to characterize the various components of the waste stream. Waste characterization for community-generated solid waste was estimated using the CalRecycle 2003, 2008 and 2014 California statewide waste characterization study.
5 Most landfills capture methane emissions
either for energy generation or for flaring. The EPA estimates that 60 percent to 80 percent6 of total methane emissions are recovered at the landfills to which the City of Monterey sends its waste. Following the recommendation of the community protocol, AMBAG adopted a 75 percent methane recovery factor and a 10% oxidation rate.
Recycling and composting programs are reflected in the emissions calculations as reduced total tonnage of waste going to the landfills. The model, however, does not capture the associated emissions reductions in “upstream” energy use from recycling as part of the inventory.7 This is in-line with the “end-user” or “tailpipe” approach taken throughout the development of this inventory. It is important to note that recycling and composting programs can have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions when a full lifecycle approach is taken. Manufacturing products with recycled materials avoids emissions from the energy that would have been used during extraction, transportation and processing of virgin material.
Wastewater Sector Methodology
Wastewater coming from homes and businesses is rich in organic matter and has a high concentration of nitrogen and carbon (along with other organic elements). As wastewater is collected, treated, and discharged, chemical processes can lead to the creation and emission of two greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide. Emissions from wastewater treatment were calculated by first assessing the treatment steps used to transform Monterey’s wastewater. Staff then used the ClearPath tool and a population-based method to estimate treatment process emissions, in accordance with the methodology delineated in the US Community protocol. 5 CalRecycle Waste Characterization Studies available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/Study 6 AP 42, section 2.4 Municipal Solid Waste, 2.4-6, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html 7 “Upstream” emissions include emissions that may not occur in your jurisdiction resulting from manufacturing or harvesting virgin materials and transportation of them.
Packet Page 123
City of Seaside | Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations 12 Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations
This Appendix describes methodologies and emissions sources which were not included in this inventory due to their emerging nature or due to a lack of consistent data sources. Some emissions were also not included because they are not required by the US community protocol and are not available for all jurisdictions or across all inventory years. This is because AMBAG staff prepares Community-wide GHG inventories for most of the jurisdictions on the central coast and seeks to use the same data sources and methodologies across all jurisdictions in order to enable an “apples to apples” comparison. Therefore when certain data sources could be used to calculate emissions for certain jurisdictions, and in some inventory years, but not others AMBAG seeks to maintain comparability across inventories.
While the methodologies highlighted in this appendix are not included in the inventory they should be of note to jurisdictions considering using this GHG inventory in the context of climate action planning since they offer insight into the different ways to conceptualize and calculate Community-wide GHG emissions. Further, the methodologies highlighted in this appendix could be included in future inventories prepared by AMBAG, and jurisdictions may choose to include these emissions when calculating and forecasting GHG emissions for the purpose of creating a climate action plan.
Global Warming Potential Values
Global Warming Potential (GWP) values are conversion factors assigned to each greenhouse gas in order to express the result of an inventory with a single Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value. Under this GWP framework CO2 is assigned a GWP of 1 while all other gases are assigned a value based on their comparative potency over a specific time period. This inventory uses the 100 years global warming potential values from the International Panel on Climate Change’s 5th assessment report (AR5). In future inventories other GWP values could be used which could significantly modify the importance of different sectors. For example the IPCC has published 20 year GWP values as part of the AR5; using these values as opposed to the 100 year values would result in methane being considered a much more potent greenhouse gas and increase the importance of solid waste emissions. Another consideration is that the IPCC will continue to release assessment reports and that future inventories will most likely be updated with future GWP values. The latest GWP values were released in August 2021 as part of the IPCCs AR6 report.
These new values reflect a higher impact for nitrous oxide, and a slight decrease in the impact of non-fossil methane.
Packet Page 124
13 Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations | City of Seaside Built Environment Emerging Methodologies: Residential, Commercial and Industrial Sectors
Electricity emissions factor methodology
Community wide GHG inventories rely on electricity emissions factors provided by Load Serving Entities(LSE) to calculate emissions from electricity use. Most climate action plans then make the assumption that under the mandates of SB 100 electricity will be significantly less carbon intensive in 2030 and carbon free by 2045. However depending on which emissions factor methodology is used these assumptions may prove to be less than accurate. For example an electricity mix meeting the requirements of SB 100, and procuring 100% of retail sales from qualified renewable and carbon free sources would be carbon neutral under one methodology but could still have significant emissions under other methodologies.
AMBAG has identified three electricity emissions factor methodologies which LSEs use to calculate electricity emissions.
- The Power Content Label (PCL) methodology: only accounts for electricity sold to customers on an annual basis under reporting requirements mandated by the California Energy Commission as part of AB 1110 rulemaking. LSEs are allowed to stack all of their renewable electricity and carbon free attributes (a market based system that enables load serving entities to purchase credits allowing electricity to be claimed as coming from a carbon free source) first and stop tracking emissions when they reach 100% of retail sales. This methodology is used in most GHG inventories and is used by load serving entities to create the Power Content Labels that customers are sent every year.
- The Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) methodology. This is the approached used by the CPUC in their regulatory proceedings in order for the state to meet the SB 100 goals. Load serving entities need to match supply with demand on an hourly basis and also account for electricity procured for resource adequacy as well as transmission and distribution losses. Under this methodology utilities are allowed to apply carbon free attributes to their electricity supply. - The Clean System (CS) Methodology: this is very similar to the IRP methodology with the difference that carbon free attributes are not allowed.
The use of one of these methodologies over another has significant policy implications since the carbon intensity of electricity informs the effectiveness of GHG reduction measures such as energy efficiency, Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM), Demand Response (DR), built environment electrification, and transportation sector electrification. In future inventories the methodology used to calculate emissions factors may change, which could have considerable impact on GHG emissions from electricity and associated climate action planning strategies.
Packet Page 125
City of Seaside | Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations 14 Fugitive methane emissions from natural gas production and distribution The current natural gas emissions calculation methodology only includes emissions resulting from combustion of natural gas in stationary sources within the community such as boilers, furnaces, and water heaters. This methodology does not account for fugitive methane emissions which occur due to leaks across the natural gas production and distribution infrastructure. If these fugitive methane emissions were included they could potentially increase the emissions intensity of natural gas significantly. One solution to calculate these emissions would be to estimate a default percentage of fugitive emissions per amount of natural gas usage and update the natural gas emissions factor accordingly. However there is currently no accepted methodology to make these calculations. Staff will continue to monitor the best available science and calculate emissions accordingly.
Stationary combustion fuels other than natural gas
The only stationary combustion fuel included in this GHG inventory is natural gas however there may be other fuels used within the community such as propane, wood, or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). While it was not possible to accurately estimate how much emissions these fuels generated as part of this GHG inventory, future efforts may seek to quantify the impact of nonnatural gas stationary combustion as new data sources and methodologies become available.
Transportation emissions
On Road Origin Destination Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Methodology The current GHG inventory calculates VMT and associated GHG emissions by scaling down county-wide data obtained using EMFAC 2021 model on a household per jurisdiction basis. This is different from an origin destination methodology, which relies on a transportation model to assign a start and end point to modeled vehicle trips and attributes the VMT from these trips to jurisdictions based on standard assumptions. Under this methodology, as defined in the U.S. community protocol, VMT from trips that begin or end within a jurisdiction are accounted for while VMT from trips that pass through jurisdictions are not tracked. Under the U.S. Community Protocol the origin destination methodology is the recommended methodology for calculating GHG emissions from on road transportation emissions.
AMBAG, as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Monterey Bay Area, is required to produce planning and programming documents that maintain the region's eligibility for federal and state transportation assistance. This includes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) which is published every four years. In order to support the metropolitan transportation planning activities and decision-making process AMBAG staff develops, maintains, and utilizes a Regional Travel Demand Model (RTDM). The current model is a 4-step model which is calibrated at the tri-county regional level for the base year. Model runs are created to evaluate the impact of different transportation infrastructure and land use decisions over a 25+ year time frame.
RTDMs are designed to evaluate performance of regional transportation system and predict future demand based on the regional demographic and economic growth pattern. Considering Packet Page 126
15 Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations | City of Seaside the regional variation, local development pattern and interdependency of local jurisdiction, using a 4-step regional modeling tool to model individual trips for a jurisdiction by jurisdiction attribution can lead to significant uncertainties. This is especially true for smaller jurisdictions (i.e.
Sand City, Carmel, or King City). Furthermore, since model development require substantial datasets, time and cost, they are often calibrated for their base year, and are not intended for back casting or annual updates. This can lead to significant methodological discrepancies between inventory years. AMBAG therefore plans to continue scaling down county-wide EMFAC 2021 as part of the regularly updated jurisdictional inventories. However, as the new activitybased model is developed, staff will continue to reassess modeling capabilities in order to consider a switch to an origin destination methodology as part of the regularly updated GHG inventories.
AMBAG encourages jurisdictions to consider using an origin destination methodology as part of their Climate Action Plan GHG inventory. As always, AMBAG staff is available to meet with jurisdictional staff and discuss the data sources and methods which could be used to calculate transportation emissions as part of its CAP development process.
Off-road transportation and equipment use
Emissions from off-road transportation and equipment account for fossil fuel use from off-road vehicles such as airport ground support vehicles, water borne vessels, and locomotives; as well as equipment use such as pumps, or construction equipment. The California Air Resources Board has created an “OFFROAD” model which provides data at the county-wide level on off-road transportation and equipment use fuel use and emissions. There is currently no accepted methodology for disaggregating this county wide data down to the jurisdictional level, and offroad emissions were therefore not included in this inventory. Staff will continue to evaluate whether these emissions can be included in future inventories, especially as updated data sources and methodologies become available.
Solid Waste emissions
Waste in place methodology
The current inventory uses a methodology which assigns the totality of methane emissions occurring as the result of landfilling waste in the year that it is disposed of. This means all methane emissions from waste sent to landfills in a year is part of that years GHG inventory even though the actual waste decomposition and release of emissions may occur over a much longer time period. It is possible to deploy an alternative so called “waste in place” methodology in order to calculate emissions from each landfill as they are occurring. Under this methodology, data on the amount of waste sent to each landfill is collected since the landfill opening year and yearly emissions are modeled based on this historical data.
Because most jurisdictions send waste to over 10 landfills within a given year, this is currently not a practical methodology. However as new data sources and models become available it may become feasible in future years to calculate solid waste emissions using this methodology.
Packet Page 127
City of Seaside | Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations 16 Landfill Methane capture rates
The current inventory assumes that all landfill have the minimum regulatory methane capture rate. However different landfills, through the adoption of cutting edge technologies, may have higher methane capture rates. Because most jurisdictions send waste to over 10 landfills within a given year it is currently not practical to estimate methane capture rates for each landfill.
AMBAG staff will continue to monitor the best available data and methodologies in order to estimate landfill methane capture rates.
Landfill waste composition
The current inventory uses the statewide waste characterization study in order to estimate the methane potency of solid waste sent to landfills. However each landfill has different waste streams and their solid waste composition may vary. While landfill specific waste characterization studies exist they are not updated as regularly as the statewide study, therefore using specific landfill waste composition studies is currently unfeasible. This does mean that local efforts to increase organic waste diversion may not be fully captured as part of the GHG inventory. As new data sources become available it may become feasible in future years to use more localized waste compositions. As such AMBAG staff will continue to monitor this issue as part of each inventory year.
Water and wastewater emissions
Water and wastewater conveyance outside of the community boundaries The current GHG inventory includes water and wastewater conveyance electricity usage emissions occurring within the community boundaries as part of the electricity and natural gas usage emissions in the Commercial/industrial sector. However emissions from water and wastewater conveyance outside of community boundaries are not included. Different methodologies could be used to estimate total water use and wastewater production in the community which could then be coupled with water energy intensity factors in order to calculate total electricity and natural gas use from water and wastewater conveyance to the community.
However using this methodology could double count emissions already included in the inventory.
As well, water and wastewater energy intensity factors are only available for certain agencies and can vary drastically depending on the water source and treatment method. While conveyance emissions are currently not included in this inventory future efforts may seek to quantify these emissions especially as updated data sources and methodologies become available.
Fugitive Methane emissions from Septic Tanks
Fugitive methane emissions from septic tank emissions are currently not included in the GHG inventory. However it is possible to assign a percentage of the population that is estimated to be served by septic tanks and use a population based methodology to calculate these emissions.
GHG Emissions from High GWP Gases
The current inventory does not include emissions from high GWP gases such as refrigerants. This is because these emissions are mostly fugitive in nature, occurring as a result of leaks in cooling systems. As part of the yearly California-wide GHG inventory, CARB does include emissions from Packet Page 128
17 Appendix B: Additional Methodology Considerations | City of Seaside high GWP gases. In 2019 these high GWP gasses accounted for approximately five percent of total California emissions. There is however currently no accepted methodology to include these gases in jurisdictional inventories. One potential approach is to scale down California-wide emissions using a population-based methodology; however this can lead to significant inaccuracies.
It is also important to note that as communities face increased heat due to climate change and as communities work to meet the state’s building decarbonization goals, equipment which uses refrigerants such as heat pumps may be become more prevalent. This will mean that GHG emissions from high GWP gases may become more significant in future years. As with other methodologies included in this appendix staff may seek to quantify these emissions especially as updated data sources and methodologies become available.
Embedded carbon and GHG emissions resulting from the consumption of goods and services
This GHG inventory does not include emissions that occur as a result of consumption of goods such as food and clothing. Likewise GHG emissions generated as part of the production of building materials, the so called “embedded carbon” of a building, are not included. However it is important to acknowledge that these emissions can be significant, especially because most goods a purchased by community members and businesses are produced outside of the community. While there currently is no standard protocol for inventorying consumption-based emissions or evaluating embedded carbon, numerous cities has expressed interest in calculating these emissions. As with other methodologies included in this appendix staff will continue to monitor available data sources and accepted methodologies in order to determine which emissions sources should be included in future GHG inventories.
Natural and working lands carbon stock and yearly change The current GHG inventory does not include emissions that exist as a result of changes in the natural and working lands carbon stock. In order for these emissions to be calculated regular natural and working lands carbon stock inventories would first have to be created for each jurisdiction. The impact of land use decisions, urban forestry initiatives, and soil conservation measures on the carbon stock could then be taken into account and included in the inventory either as emissions sources or as sinks. As jurisdictions seek to meet aggressive GHG reduction targets, natural and working lands carbon stock emissions could become an integral part of the inventory process. AMBAG staff will continue to monitor this emerging sector and may seek to quantify these emissions as updated data sources and methodologies become available.
Packet Page 129
City of Seaside | Appendix C: Glossary 18
Appendix C: Glossary
This Appendix provides a brief description of technical terms used in the inventory.
Activity Data:
Data on the magnitude of a human activity resulting in emissions or removals taking place during a given period of time. Data on energy use, metal production, land areas, management systems, lime and fertilizer use and solid waste production are examples of bodata.
Baseline year:
A specific year against which emissions are tracked over time. For this inventory, the baseline year is 2005.
Boundaries:
GHG accounting and reporting boundaries can have several dimensions, i.e., jurisdictional, operational or geopolitical. The inventory boundary determines which emissions are accounted and reported.
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent:
A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential (GWP). Carbon dioxide equivalents are commonly expressed as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e). The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP. See appendix A.
Community-wide GHG Inventory:
A calculation of GHG emissions generated as a result of activities within a community.
Consistency:
Consistency means that an inventory should be internally consistent in all its elements over a period of years. An inventory is consistent if the same methodologies are used for the base and all subsequent years and if consistent data sets are used to estimate emissions or removals from sources or sinks.
Direct GHG emissions:
Emissions from sources that occur within a jurisdiction’s operational or geopolitical boundaries are called direct GHG emissions.
Emissions Factor:
A unique value for scaling emissions to activity data in terms of a standard rate of emissions per unit of activity (e.g., grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh of electricity use or per therms of natural gas use).
Packet Page 130
19 Appendix C: Glossary | City of Seaside
Fugitive emissions:
Emissions that are not physically controlled but result from the intentional or unintentional releases of GHGs. They commonly arise from the production, processing transmission storage and use of fuels and other chemicals, often through joints, seals, packing, gaskets, etc.
Global Warming Potential:
A measure of the total energy that a gas absorbs over a particular period of time (usually 100 years), compared to carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs):
Gases which when released in the atmosphere have a warming impact. The GHG’s considered in this inventory are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O).
Indirect emissions:
Emissions that are a consequence of activities inside a jurisdiction, but occur from sources outside of the inventory boundaries, e.g., as a result of the import of electricity, heat, or steam.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
The IPCC was established jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988. The purpose of the IPCC is to assess information in the scientific and technical literature related to all significant components of the issue of climate change. Leading experts on climate change and environmental, social, and economic sciences have helped the IPCC to prepare periodic assessments of the scientific underpinnings for understanding global climate change and its consequences. With its capacity for reporting on climate change, its consequences, and the viability of adaptation and mitigation measures, the IPCC is also looked to as the official advisory body to the world's governments on the state of the science of the climate change issue.
Methane (CH4):
A hydrocarbon that is a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential estimated at 28 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Methane is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion. The GWP is from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
Nitrous Oxide (N2O):
A powerful greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 265 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2). Major sources of nitrous oxide include soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, manure management, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning. The GWP is from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
Process emissions:
Emissions from industrial processes involving chemical transformations other than combustion.
Packet Page 131
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 8.K.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Sheri Damon, City Attorney
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF REJECTION OF GOVERNMENT CLAIM OF CARI
MCCORMICK (THIS ADDITION TO THE AGENDA OCCURRED
AFTER AFTER THE 72 HOUR POSTING DEADLINE, A 2/3
MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED TO ADD THIS ITEM TO THE
AGENDA)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council reject the following claim and direct sending appropriate notice of rejection to the claimant: Brent Robinson, Aiman-Smith & Marcy representatives of Cari McCormick for a class action industrial retirement discrimination claim.
BACKGROUND
THIS ADDITION TO THE AGENDA OCCURRED AFTER AFTER THE 72 HOUR POSTING DEADLINE, A 2/3 MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED TO ADD THIS ITEM TO THE AGENDA.
The City received the attached Claim on or about July 14, 2023 and received a denial of coverage from our claims carrier on or about September 18, 2023 after business hours.
The Claim alleges an unspecified monetary amount, but that agencies covered by California Public Retirement System (CalPERS) contracts for industrial retirement are discriminatory.
FISCAL IMPACT
None associated with the rejection of a claim.
ATTACHMENTS
Packet Page 132
Item No. 8.K. Page 2 of 2
1. Notice of Claim-McCormick class action
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 133
Packet Page 134
Packet Page 135
Packet Page 136
Packet Page 137
Packet Page 138
Packet Page 139
Packet Page 140
Packet Page 141
Packet Page 142
Packet Page 143
Packet Page 144
Packet Page 145
Packet Page 146
Packet Page 147
Packet Page 148
Packet Page 149
Packet Page 150
Packet Page 151
Packet Page 152
Packet Page 153
Packet Page 154
Packet Page 155
Packet Page 156
Packet Page 157
Packet Page 158
Packet Page 159
Packet Page 160
Packet Page 161
Packet Page 162
Packet Page 163
Packet Page 164
Packet Page 165
Packet Page 166
Packet Page 167
Packet Page 168
Packet Page 169
Packet Page 170
Packet Page 171
Packet Page 172
Packet Page 173
Packet Page 174
Packet Page 175
Packet Page 176
Packet Page 177
Packet Page 178
Packet Page 179
Packet Page 180
Packet Page 181
Packet Page 182
Packet Page 183
Packet Page 184
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 9.A.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Dan Meewis, Recreation Director
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: RECEIVE UPDATE FROM CONSERVATION TECHNIX ON THE
CITY OF SEASIDE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Receive update on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, and provide feedback and direction as necessary.
BACKGROUND
On January 30, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City manager to enter into an agreement with Conservation Technix to prepare the Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Seaside. The Master Plan will guide policy development, prioritize demands and opportunities, and generate strategic action. The plan will seek to incorporate energy efficient strategies and environmental remediation opportunities, and will include elements that ensure the consideration of racial equity in resource allocation and service development. The last City of Seaside Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed in 2005.
Conservation Technix is on schedule with the project and has recently completed the following aspects: mail-in and online surveys, parks and facility visual site assessments, first open house in May 2023, multiple stakeholder meetings, and presented it to the Parks and Recreation Commission to get additional public input. As they enter the final stages of project completion, they will be presenting at a joint commission meeting with the Parks & Recreation Commission, Art & History Commission and the Environmental Commission on October 16, 2023, and they will host a second open house on November 8, 2023. These meetings will be followed by the draft plan preparation, and final meetings with the Park and Recreation Commission, Planning commission, and the City Council review and adoption.
Packet Page 185
Item No. 9.A. Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this item.
ATTACHMENTS
None
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 186
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 9.B.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Nisha Patel, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Leslie Llantero, Assistant Engineer
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION BID
DOCUMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AVENUE COMPLETE
STREETS CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,576,000.00 FULLY FUNDED BY
THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM GRANT.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for engineering design services and construction bid documents for the Broadway Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $1,576,000.00.
BACKGROUND
In 2020, the City applied for and received grant funds from the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) for the design and construction of the Broadway Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project (Project). The Project will implement a road diet on Broadway Avenue from Fremont Boulevard to General Jim Boulevard, reducing Broadway Avenue from a 4 lane roadway into a 2 lane roadway with curb extensions, bike lanes, roundabouts, and crosswalks.
Improvements on Yosemite Street will include bicycle pavement markings and signage.
Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) was selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process to obtain Project Approval and prepare Environmental Documents (PA&ED), and to prepare the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) for the Project.
Packet Page 187
Item No. 9.B. Page 2 of 2
To comply with grant program requirements, the consultant proposal was separated into two phases. On June 16, 2022, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with KHA to complete the PA&ED phase. This phase of the project is complete, which included preliminary concepts and layouts plans, 30% plans, CEQA determination, community input, and California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval to move forward into the final design phase. On May 18, 2023, the CTC approved the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Baseline Agreement, and fund allocation request for the PS&E phase in the amount of $1,576,000.00. The 30% design plans are complete and KHA's proposal for the PS&E includes project management, coordination and documentation, utility coordination, final design plans, construction bid documents, bidding support services, design services during construction, agency meeting coordination, and comment resolution for an amount not to exceed $1,576,000.00. The PS&E phase is expected to take a year. Upon approval of the 100% PS&E from the CTC, the City will publicly bid the Project for construction. It is estimated that construction will start in December 2025.
The Project is state funded by the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). The PA&ED phase is complete, and the California Transportation Commission approved an allocation effective May 18, 2023 in the amount of $1,576,000.00 for the PS&E phase.
FISCAL IMPACT
The professional services agreement will be paid out of the Transportation Account 212- 8950-9600 and be reimbursed through an ATP grant.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Professional Services Agreement - Design Phase 2 - not signed yet
3. 30% Plans
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 188
RESOLUTION NO. 23-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE
ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION BID DOCUMENTS
FOR THE BROADWAY AVENUE COMPETE STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,567,000.00
WHEREAS, the Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project (Project) is adopted in the fiscal year 2023/2024 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) annual budget; and
WHEREAS, the City has secured funding through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) grant funds in the amount of $12.04 million; and
WHEREAS, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was selected through a competitive Request for Proposal process to obtain Project Approval and Environmental Documents (PA&ED), and for Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2022, the City Council approved a professional services agreement with KHA to complete the PA&ED phase; and
WHEREAS, PA&ED phase of the project is complete which included preliminary concepts and layouts plans, 30% plans, CEQA determination, community input, and California Transportation Commission (CTC) approval; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2023, the City Council approved the Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2023, the CTC approved the City’s requested fund allocation from the Active Transportation Program for the PS&E phase in the amount of $1,567,000.00; and
WHEREAS, KHA submitted a revised proposal for PS&E services to include project management, coordination and documentation; utility coordination, 100% final design plans, bidding support services, design services during construction, and agency meeting coordination and comment resolution for an amount not to exceed $1,567,000.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside does hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to perform engineering design services Packet Page 189
and construction bid documents for the Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project for an amount not to exceed $1,567,000.00.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, duly held on the 21st day of September, 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 190
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 1 COS Design PSA
CITY OF SEASIDE
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT
FOR BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT PHASE 2
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective September 21, 2023, between the City of Seaside, a municipal corporation ("Agency") and Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. a corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on September 21, 2023 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2026, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his/her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. AGENCY MANAGEMENT
Agency’s City Engineer shall represent Agency in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by Consultant, but not including the authority to enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change the compensation due to Consultant. Agency’s City Manager shall be authorized to act on Agency's behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Tasks to Be Performed or change Consultant's compensation, subject to Section 5 hereof.
5. PAYMENT
Packet Page 191
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 2 COS Design PSA
(a) The Agency agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed One Million Five Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Dollars ($1,576,000.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
(b) Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the Agency City Manager. Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by Agency City Manager and Consultant at the time Agency's written authorization is given to Consultant for the performance of said services.
(c) Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the Agency disputes any of Consultant's fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
6. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE (a) The Agency may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the Agency suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
(b) In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the Agency shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the Agency. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the Agency pursuant to Section 3.
Packet Page 192
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 3 COS Design PSA
7. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
(a) The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, Agency shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default. (b) If the Agency Manager or his/her delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall cause to be served upon the Consultant a written notice of the default.
The Consultant shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the Agency shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
8. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
(a) Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by Agency that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of Agency or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give Agency the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit Agency to make transcripts therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
(b) Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, computer discs, and reports prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of Consultant. With respect to computer files, Consultant shall make available to City, at City's office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary Packet Page 193
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 4 COS Design PSA
computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files. Any modification made by City to any of the Consultant’s documents, or any use, partial use or reuse of the documents, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement, without written authorization or adaptation by the Consultant will be at the Client’s sole risk and without liability to the Consultant, and the City shall indemnify, defend and hold the Consultant harmless form all claims, damages, losses and expenses including but not limited to attorney’s fees, resulting therefrom.
9. INDEMNITY AND DEFENSE
(a) Indemnification and Defense for Professional Services To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Agency and any and all of its officials, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant’s duty to defend shall consist of reimbursement of defense costs incurred by Agency in direct proportion to the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
Consultant’s percentage of fault shall be determined, as applicable, by a court of law, jury or arbitrator. In the event any loss, liability or damage is incurred by way of settlement or resolution without a court, jury or arbitrator having made a determination of the Consultant’s percentage of fault, the parties agree to mediation with a third party neutral to determine the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault for purposes of determining the amount of indemnity and defense cost reimbursement owed to the Agency.
(b) For All Other Liabilities
Notwithstanding the foregoing and without diminishing any rights of Agency under Section 9.A, for any liability, claim, demand, allegation against Agency arising out of, related to, or pertaining to any act or omission of Consultant, but which is not a design professional service, Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Agency, its officials, employees, and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses (including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees), judgments, settlements, and/or arbitration awards, whether for personal or bodily injury, property damage, or economic injury, and arising out of, related to, any concurrent or contributory negligence on the part of the Agency, except for the sole or active negligence of, or willful misconduct of the Agency.
Packet Page 194
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 5 COS Design PSA
10. INSURANCE
Consultant shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C attached to and part of this Agreement.
11. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
(a) Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the Agency a wholly independent Consultant. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither Agency nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the Agency. Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against Agency, or bind Agency in any manner. (b) No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, Agency shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for Agency. Agency shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. The Agency, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this Section.
13. UNDUE INFLUENCE
Consultant declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the Agency in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the Agency will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from Consultant, or from any officer, employee or agent of Consultant, in connection Packet Page 195
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 6 COS Design PSA
with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling the City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
14. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of Agency, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Project performed under this Agreement.
15. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without Agency's prior written authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the Agency Manager or unless requested by the Agency Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the Agency.
Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives Agency notice of such court order or subpoena. (b) Consultant shall promptly notify Agency should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the Agency. Agency retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with Agency and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, Agency's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by Agency to control, direct, or rewrite said response.
16. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Packet Page 196
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 7 COS Design PSA
Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:
To Agency: __City of Seaside___________
__440 Harcourt Ave_________
__Seaside, CA 93955________
Attention: City Clerk
To Consultant: ____Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.__
1615 Bunker Hill Way, Suite 200
____Salinas, Ca 93906________
17. ASSIGNMENT
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the Agency. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, Frederik Venter, P.E., shall be the Project Manager and Engineer of Record for the services described in this Agreement.
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. may use assistants, under its direct supervision, to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide Agency fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of Frederik Venter, P.E from Consultant's employ. Should he/she leave Consultant's employ, the Agency shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period. Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the Governing Board and the Consultant.
18. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.
19. GOVERNING LAW
The Agency and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with jurisdiction over the Agency.
Packet Page 197
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 8 COS Design PSA
20. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
21. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
Consultant is bound by the contents of Agency's Request for Proposal, Exhibit D hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by the Consultant, Exhibit A hereto. In the event of conflict, the requirements of Agency's Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in the Consultant's proposals.
22. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT: Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
By: ______________________________ Date:_________________ Matthew D. Weir
Vice President
City of Seaside
A Municipal Corporation
By: ______________________________ Date:_________________ Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 198
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2
Rev. 1/18 Page 9 COS Design PSA
Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work/Consultant Proposal Exhibit B Fee Proposal
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
Exhibit D Request for Proposal
Packet Page 199
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Packet Page 200
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 1
kimley-horn.com 1615 Bunker Hill Way, Suite 200, Salinas, CA 93906 831.783.0352 July 26, 2023
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E.
Public Works Director / City Engineer
City of Seaside Engineering Division
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Re: Scope of Services and Fee
Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project Scope of Services
Phase 2 – Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E)
TASK 1- PROJECT MANAGEMENT, COORDINATION & DOCUMENTATION Task 1.1 Project Administration:
Kimley-Horn will supervise, coordinate, and monitor project design activities. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City, including providing monthly project status reports. We will develop and maintain a critical path method (CPM) project schedule, updating it at each PS&E submittal, and as requested by the City.
Task 1.2 Coordination and Meetings:
We anticipate holding a kick-off meeting for the PS&E phase with the City to discuss the proposed project approach, potential design challenges, schedule, and deadlines. We assume up to twelve (12) additional meetings with the City, with the remainder of coordination through email and telephone calls. Meetings will be summarized with meeting minutes, and we assume all meetings with be online format. If requested by the City, we can be available for limited in-person meetings, up to the estimated budget for this task.
Task 1.3 MST Coordination:
Kimley-Horn will coordinate with MST relative to their existing bus stops along the corridor and any future stops or improvements. We assume coordination will be through telephone conference and email correspondence.
Task 1.4 ATP Reporting Assistance:
Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing the necessary documentation as required by Caltrans to submit quarterly Project Progress Reports, the Completion Report, and a Final Delivery Report.
Task 1.5 Coordination for RFA for Construction:
Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing the documentation as required by Caltrans to submit for the Request for Authorization (RFA) for the Construction (CON) phase. We assume we will support the City in preparation of the following documents, up to a total of 45 hours:
▪ LAPG 25-A: Allocation/Time Extension Form
▪ LAPM 13-A / 13-B: Right of Way Certification
We assume providing DBE calculations will not be required but can be provided for additional scope and fee if requested.
Packet Page 201
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 2
Task 1.6 QA/QC:
Kimley-Horn will follow a structured QC/QA process that will be implemented throughout the life of the project. In addition to our internal senior staff’s review, our partner, CSG, will perform independent reviews ahead of the 60%, 90%, and Final/Bid PS&E submittals to review overall constructability and quality of our deliverables. CSG will use an in-house QC/QA Implementation Plan utilizing a peer review process with multi-level internal project checking.
Constructability reviews will allow CSG and the City to determine the biddability and the build-ability of the project. CSG will value engineer the project to assure it will be constructed as economically and efficiently as possible.
A log to record QC measures taken during the project, including corrective actions taken, will be maintained by the project manager.
We assume the project management task to occur over twelve (12) months and conclude with the submittal of the Final PS&E for advertisement. Project Management, coordination, and meetings during the construction phase are assumed to be included in Task 4 Bidding Support Services and Task 5 Design Support During Construction (DSDC) below.
Task 1.7 Coordination with Stakeholders (Property Owners):
Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing exhibits and conducting meetings with property owners that are impacted by the project for up to ten (10) locations as determined in the PA&ED phase. We assume we will support the City in preparation of the following documents, up to a total of 114 hours:
▪ Exhibits of each property location including proposed improvements and ROW ▪ Presentation Materials
▪ Meeting Notes
Task 1.8 Presentations to City Council:
Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing the presentation materials as required for City Council meetings for up to two (2) meetings. We assume we will support the City in preparation of the following documents, up to a total of 58 hours:
▪ Powerpoint Presentation
▪ Staff Report
Task 1.9 Video Analysis and Graphics
Kimley-Horn will assist the City with preparing the educational materials and analysis. Kimley-Horn will perform drone video data analytics to calibrate the existing conditions and identify congestion issue(s) in front of Martin Luther King Jr School of the Arts. Video analysis will be used to produce character IDs for each vehicle entering/exiting the school property. Multiple facets of information can be extracted from the data analytics for each vehicle, including: duration of time within the school property, average vehicle speed, cumulative time stopped (vehicle speed less than 1mph), and a count for how many vehicles entered and exited the site within a specific timeframe or for the duration of the video. The “before” drone video analytics will be compared to the “after” scenario to provide quantitative results of the implemented solution(s). We assume the analysis and outreach materials will require up to a total of 96 hours:
▪ Video Analysis
▪ Educational Materials
Packet Page 202
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 3
TASK DELIVERABLES
▪ Monthly invoices (PDF)
▪ Meeting notes (PDF)
▪ Baseline Agreement and RFA documentation (PDF)
▪ Monthly schedule updates (PDF)
▪ Assist with Quarterly Progress Reports, Completion Report, and Final Delivery Report ▪ QC Markups (as requested, PDF)
TASK 2 – UTILITY COORDINATION
Task 2.1 Potholing:
Due to the uncertainty of the need for potholing, we have included an assumed budget. Based on the recommended pothole locations identified in Phase 1, a final budget and scope of potholing services will be prepared. Kimley-Horn will coordinate with the City on the final scope and budget prior to commencing potholing services.
Task 2.2 Utility Coordination
CSG will coordinate with various utility companies that have facilities within the project area and provide identification of and notification for all required utility relocations. Notifications will be based on the proposed improvements within the project area.
TASK 3 – PS&E
Task 3.1 60% PS&E:
Based on comments received on the 30% design and plans, the 60% design will be developed. We anticipate the plans will include the sheets below including details and vertical design information. The construction detail sheets for the proposed drainage improvements will provide vertical design information. Proposed drainage horizontal layout (as needed) will be provided at this design level.
We have established a budget for Whitson Engineers to provide up to three (3) days of supplemental field surveying.
We assume the specifications will not be prepared at this level. We will prepare an Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) for the proposed improvements.
Assumed plan sheets:
Description No. Sheets
1 Horizontal Control Plan 1
Typical Sections 3
Demolition Plans 7
Layout Plans 9
Profiles 7
Construction Details – Mini RABs 28
Construction Details – Curb ramps 21
Construction Details 4
Drainage Plans, Profiles, Details 20
Utility Plans 7
Packet Page 203
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 4
Description No. Sheets
Signing and Striping Plans 7
Streetlighting Plans 8
Urban Design Plans 4
Landscaping and Irrigation Plans 21
Total: 148 sheets
TASK DELIVERABLES
• 60% Plans (PDF, two (2) hardcopies, 24”x36”, bond)
• 60% OPCC (Excel, PDF)
Task 3.2 90% PS&E
Based on one set of non-conflicting City review comments, Kimley-Horn will advance the design and plans to the 90% design level. Significant design or plan changes will be considered additional scope and can be performed for additional fee.
Kimley-Horn will perform a street lighting analysis to determine appropriate lighting levels and locations of proposed and existing street lighting. Street light plans, specifications, and estimates will be included in the PS&E package.
Technical specifications will be developed at this level according to Caltrans 2018 format. The City will prepare the front-end boilerplate specification, including incorporating project specific information (project name, notice to contractors, estimate, etc). Kimley-Horn will review the front-end boilerplate specifications and coordinate potential modifications with the City prior to compiling the final project specifications. Technical specifications will be developed using Caltrans special provisions and any City-provided technical specifications. All proposed changes to special provisions will be tracked at the 90% level. Changes will be tracked in the specifications up until the Final PS&E, when all changes will be accepted, and a clean version provided. Final technical specifications will be provided to the City, who will merge them, along with the front-end boilerplate, into the overall final project specifications.
As part of this task, we will prepare the necessary documentation for the right of way certification for the project, including necessary utility adjustments and relocations, in accordance with the Caltrans LAPM. We assume no right of way acquisition, appraisals, or formal temporary construction easements (TCEs) will be required for the project. We assume temporary construction access to install the sidewalks adjacent to the private properties will be through property owner coordination and letter agreements. Kimley Horn will coordinate directly with the property owners on behalf of the City including up to a total of 14 hours. If additional property owner coordination or formal TCEs are required (appraisals, plat/legal maps, etc.), we can provide these services for additional scope and fee.
TASK DELIVERABLES
• 90% Plans (PDF, two (2) hardcopies, 24”x36”, bond)
• 90% OPCC (Excel, PDF)
• 90% Technical Specifications (DOC, PDF)
• Responses to City’s review comments on 60% submittal with return markups Packet Page 204
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 5
Task 3.3 Final/Bid PS&E:
Based on one set of non-conflicting City review comments with only minor changes to the plans, KimleyHorn will advance the design and plans to the Final/Bid design level. Significant design or plan changes will be considered additional scope and can be performed for additional fee.
Kimley-Horn will prepare documents for the first submittal to the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for review and approval. This will include intake forms, scheduling and coordination of meetings. If needed, Kimley-Horn will review and address all comments associated with the first submittal to DSA.
Coordination with City staff, stakeholders or utility providers relating to DSA comments will be included in this task up to 20 hours. Once all comments are addressed to the satisfaction of DSA, Kimley-Horn will resubmit the plans for approval. We assume no further comments will need to be addressed after resubmittal for approval.
To comply with ATP Project Reporting, traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian counts must be collected no more than six (6) months in advance of the construction contract award or the beginning of the construction phase, and after construction is complete. Kimley-Horn will provide the raw count data to the City. Analysis or evaluation of the data is not included in this scope of services.
TASK DELIVERABLES
• Final/Signed Plans (PDF, one (1) hardcopy,24”x36”, bond) • Final/Signed Specifications (PDF)
• Final OPCC (PDF)
• Responses to City’s review comments on 90% submittal with return markups • Raw before and after count data (PDF)
Task 3.4 Drainage Report & Stormwater Control Plan:
Mark Thomas will update the drainage analysis for the project. This will include calculations for watershed areas, storm intensity, pipe velocity, pipe capacity, and gutter flow. Mark Thomas will update the stormwater treatment analysis for the project, which will include documenting treatment requirements, computing stormwater treatment areas, and designing features for storm water quality control.
Task 3.5 Prepare Traffic Control Plans:
Kimley-Horn will prepare Stage Construction plans for the project area along Broadway Avenue from Fremont Street to General Jim Moore Boulevard. Plans are limited to work zone hatching, direction of travel, schematic temporary construction area sign placements, and notes. The plans will be based on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices – California Edition and Caltrans Traffic Manual, modified as required per City requirements. Kimley-Horn will address one set of non-conflicting City review comments with only minor changes to the Stage Construction plans. Kimley-Horn will prepare up to seven (7) Stage Construction plan sheets for up to a total of 40 hours.
Kimley-Horn will prepare Traffic Handling and Detour plans required for any long-term lane closures and any detours only along Broadway Avenue between Yosemite Street and Costa Street. The plans will be based on the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices – California Edition and Caltrans Traffic Manual, modified as required per City requirements. Kimley-Horn will address one set of nonconflicting City review comments with only minor changes to the Traffic Handling and Detour plans.
Kimley-Horn will prepare up to eight (8) total Traffic Handling and Detour plan sheets for up to a total of 86 hours. Detailed Traffic Handing and Detour plans outside of this segment (Broadway Avenue Packet Page 205
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 6
between Yosemite Street and Costa Street) are not included in this scope and we assume will be provided by the contractor prior to construction.
TASK 4 – BIDDING SUPPORT SERVICES
The Kimley-Horn team will provide support to the City during the bidding phase by attending one (1) pre-bid meeting and reviewing and responding to bidders’ questions and RFIs. Our scope includes up to 80 hours total of Kimley-Horn staff time and up to 24 hours total of Mark Thomas staff time for bidding support.
We assume the bidding support task to occur over two (2) months.
TASK 5 – DESIGN SUPPORT DURING CONSTRUCTION (DSDC)
Task 5.1 DSDC:
Kimley-Horn team will coordinate with and provide support to the City during construction. We assume this task to occur over 12 months. The following list of services may be provided as requested by the City. In providing these services, our scope includes up to 315 hours of Kimley-Horn staff and 96 hours of Mark Thomas staff time. Effort beyond the assumed scope can be provided for additional scope and fee.
Project Management and Coordination
Kimley-Horn will provide management and coordination of Kimley-Horn and subconsultant staff, including management and review of Consultant team contract and deliverables. We assume coordination with the City will occur through email and teleconference, in addition to the meetings identified below.
Pre-Construction Meeting
Attend the pre-construction meeting (up to two Kimley-Horn staff). We assume meeting to be conducted in person at the City of Seaside offices or other location to be determined.
Visits to Site
Kimley-Horn will make visits as directed by Client. Such site visits will not be exhaustive or extend to every aspect of Contractor's work.
Kimley-Horn will not supervise, direct, or have control over Contractor's work, nor shall Kimley-Horn have authority to stop the Work or have responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, equipment choice and usage, schedules, or procedures of construction selected by Contractor, for safety programs incident to Contractor's work, or for any failure of Contractor to comply with any laws. Kimley-Horn does not guarantee the performance of any Contractor and has no responsibility for Contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contract Documents.
Clarifications and Interpretations
Kimley-Horn will respond to reasonable and appropriate Contractor requests for information and issue necessary clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents. Any orders authorizing variations from the Contract Documents will be made by Client.
Shop Drawings and Samples
Kimley-Horn will review and approve or take other appropriate action in respect to Shop Drawings and Samples and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such review and approvals or other action will not extend to means, methods, techniques, equipment choice and usage, schedules, or procedures of construction or to related safety programs.
Packet Page 206
Ms. Nisha Patel, P.E., City of Seaside, July 26, 2023
Broadway Ave. Corridor Improvements Project, Page 7
Substantial Completion
Kimley-Horn will, after notice from Contractor that it considers the Work ready for its intended use, in company with Client and Contractor, conduct a site visit to determine if the Work is substantially complete. Work will be considered substantially complete following satisfactory completion of all items with the exception of those identified on a final punch list.
Final Notice of Acceptability of the Work
Kimley-Horn, if requested by the City, will conduct a final site visit to determine if the completed Work of Contractor is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents and the final punch list. KimleyHorn shall also provide a notice that the Work is generally in accordance with the Contract Documents to the best of Kimley-Horn’s knowledge, information, and belief based on the extent of its services and based upon information provided to Kimley-Horn.
Limitation of Responsibilities
Kimley-Horn shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any Contractor, or of any of their subcontractors, suppliers, or of any other individual or entity performing or furnishing the work. KimleyHorn shall not have the authority or responsibility to stop the work of any Contractor.
We assume the City’s own forces or a construction management (CM) firm will handle standard construction management, earthwork, and compaction testing. A Resident Engineer (RE) representing the City will oversee the construction. The regular earthwork observation and compaction testing are not in the scope of work.
Task 5.2 Prepare Record Drawings:
Based on redline markups of the construction contract drawings provided by the Contractor and RE, Kimley-Horn will prepare record drawings that reflect the actual improvements constructed in the field. The accuracy of the record drawings will be limited by the accuracy and completeness of the redlines provided to Kimley-Horn. We have assumed a total of 80 hours for Kimley-Horn staff time and 36 hours for Mark Thomas staff time for this task. An electronic PDF of the record drawings will be provided to the City.
Exclusions:
1. Water Pressure readings and/or pump station design
2. Signage Monumentation design and/or detailing
3. Selection and/or recommendations for Site Amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, planter boxes, etc.
4. Signage and/or Wayfinding Design
5. Value Engineering
6. Submittal and/or Permitting Fees
7. Environmental and/or Bio-Assay Services
8. Existing Plant Inventory or Landscape Preservation Plans
9. Site and/or Landscape Lighting
10. Structural Review and Certification
11. Warranty and/or Maintenance Administration
12. A soils consultant and soil analysis will be coordinated/prepared by the contractor upon the completion of mass grading. The existing soil nutrient information will be compared against the proposed plant palette to determine the appropriate amendment recommendations.
Packet Page 207
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 PHASE 1 - PA&ED
46 PHASE 2 - PS&E
47 Project Admin/Management 370 days Mon 10/2/23 Fri 2/28/25 48 Receive E76 for PS&E - Notice to Proceed 10 days Mon 10/2/23 Fri 10/13/23 49 Project Admin 200 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 7/19/24
50 Coordination and Meetings 200 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 7/19/24 51 MST Coordination 140 days Mon 5/27/24 Fri 12/6/24
52 ATP Reporting Assistance 200 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 7/19/24 53 Coordination for RFA for Construction 60 days Mon 12/9/24 Fri 2/28/25 54 CTC Meeting 0 days Fri 12/6/24 Fri 12/6/24
55 QA/QC 200 days Mon 3/4/24 Fri 12/6/24
56 60% PS&E 20 days Mon 3/4/24 Fri 3/29/24
57 90% PS&E 20 days Mon 7/29/24 Fri 8/23/24
58 Final/Bid PS&E 15 days Mon 11/18/24 Fri 12/6/24
59 Utility Coordination 225 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 8/23/24 60 Potholing 20 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 11/10/23
61 Final Relocation/Adjsutment Verification 40 days Mon 7/1/24 Fri 8/23/24 62 PS&E 300 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 12/6/24
63 60% PS&E 120 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 3/29/24
64 City Review 15 days Mon 4/1/24 Fri 4/19/24
65 90% PS&E 90 days Mon 4/22/24 Fri 8/23/24
66 DSA Review 45 days Fri 2/23/24 Thu 4/25/24
67 City Review 15 days Mon 8/26/24 Fri 9/13/24
68 Final/Bid PS&E 60 days Mon 9/16/24 Fri 12/6/24
69 Bidding Support Services 131 days Fri 2/28/25 Fri 8/29/25 70 Receive Funding for Construction 60 days Mon 3/3/25 Fri 5/23/25 71 City Council Meeting 0 days Fri 2/28/25 Fri 2/28/25
72 Bidding Support Services 60 days Mon 6/9/25 Fri 8/29/25 73 Design Support During Construction 465 days Mon 9/1/25 Fri 6/11/27 74 DSDC 450 days Mon 9/1/25 Fri 5/21/27
75 Prepare Record Drawings 15 days Mon 5/24/27 Fri 6/11/27 76 ATP Milestone Dates 1314 days Thu 5/18/23 Wed 5/31/28 77 Baseline Agreement 0 days Thu 5/18/23 Thu 5/18/23
78 PA&ED 0 days Thu 5/18/23 Thu 5/18/23
79 ROW Cert 0 days Tue 7/16/24 Tue 7/16/24
80 Ready to List 0 days Wed 8/20/25 Wed 8/20/25
81 Begin Construction 0 days Mon 11/17/25 Mon 11/17/25
82 End Construction 0 days Tue 11/30/27 Tue 11/30/27
83 End Project 0 days Wed 5/31/28 Wed 5/31/28
12/6
2/28
5/18
5/18
7/16
8/20
11/17
11/30
MayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec Jan FebMarAprMayJun Qtr 2, 2023 Qtr 3, 2023 Qtr 4, 2023 Qtr 1, 2024 Qtr 2, 2024 Qtr 3, 2024 Qtr 4, 2024 Qtr 1, 2025 Qtr 2, 2025 Qtr 3, 2025 Qtr 4, 2025 Qtr 1, 2026 Qtr 2, 2026 Qtr 3, 2026 Qtr 4, 2026 Qtr 1, 2027 Qtr 2, 2027 Qtr 3, 2027 Qtr 4, 2027 Qtr 1, 2028 Qtr 2, 2028 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Project: Broadway Corridor Sch
Date: Thu 8/31/23
Packet Page 208
191.24% Overhead% Name
Megan
Ulery Frederik Venter Peter Meyerhoffer
190.79% Overhead% w/o FCCM Category/Title QC/QA Project Manager Principal‐in‐ Charge 10% Fee% Direct Rate $86.54 $131.26 $92.50 $112.48 $101.84 $90.91 $81.00 $67.07 $60.96 $47.02 $41.36 $59.46 $36.73 Billing Rate $277.20 $420.45 $296.30 $360.29 $326.21 $291.20 $259.46 $214.84 $195.27 $150.61 $132.48 $190.46 $117.65 Task 1 105 114 55 127 106 188 165 20 16 16 912 $ 231,406.58
1.1 12 12 16 16 16 72 $ 18,041.131.2 60 15 80 40 25 25 245 $ 74,793.851.3 15 40520 40 120 $ 31,003.361.4 20 40 60 $ 13,354.741.5 55 30 5 45 $ 12,248.361.6 80 80 $ 22,176.331.7 12 12 66 40 130 $ 27,872.111.8 6 6 32 20 64 $ 13,740.791.9 4 12 204020 96 $ 18,175.93 Task 2 20 64 84 $ 17,686.22
2.1 424 28 $ 5,724.232.2 16 40 56 $ 11,961.99
Task 3 4 70 8 172 185 298 320 582 820 440 2899 $ 584,911.94
3.1 30 4 80 100 140 120 300 400 200 1374 $ 276,698.983.2 20 2 60 60 80 160 200 240 140 962 $ 195,053.643.3 10 2 2025604050 140 80 427 $ 84,338.423.4 244 10 $ 2,471.333.5 4 10 101428 40 20 126 $ 26,349.57 Task 4 10 5 5 20 20 20 80 $ 19,398.36
4.1 10 5 5 20 20 20 80 $ 19,398.36
Task 5 10 15 35 35 70 110 70 20 15 15 395 $ 88,144.10
5.1 15 30 30 60 100 50 15 15 315 $ 72,075.785.2 10 5 5 10 10 20 20 80 $ 16,068.32 119 209 55 8 339 225 514 320 964 1075 480 31 31 4370
$ 32,987.28 $ 87,874.20 $ 16,296.23 $ 2,882.36 $ 110,586.16 $ 65,520.45 $ 133,361.61 $ 68,748.15 $ 188,236.87 $ 161,910.04 $ 63,592.29 $ 5,904.31 $ 3,647.25 $ 941,547.21 $ 570,182.56
$ 18,948.64
$ 2,800.00
$ 800.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 135,000.00
$ 91,120.96
$ 295,521.90
$ 10,991.06
$ 1,511,729.76
Kimley‐Horn's rates are valid through 6/30/2024, and will escalate 7/1/2024. Unnamed staff will bill to the classification they are in at the time of billing.
O.1 $ 64,270.24
Project Admin
CITY OF SEASIDE
Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements
Phase 2 - PS&E
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Sr.
Professional III
Sr.
Professional II Professional III Professional II Analyst II Analyst I Sr. Project Support Project Support Total Hours Total Cost
Project Admin/Management
60% PS&ECoordination and Meetings
MST CoordinationATP Reporting Assistance
QA/QC
Utility Coordination
PotholingFinal Relocation/Adjustment Verification
PS&E
Coordination with Stakeholders (Property Owners)Video Analysis & GraphicsPresentations to City CouncilDSDC90% PS&EFinal/Bid PS&E Prepare Traffic Control Plans
Bidding Support Services
Bidding Support Services
Design Support During Construction
Drainage Report & Stormwater Control Plan
Prepare Record Drawings
Labor Escalation
Travel/MileageOutside PrintingMark Thomas & Company, Inc.
Other Direct Costs & Subconsultants
Traffic Counts
Potholing (Badger Daylighting)
CSG Consultants, Inc.
Coordination for RFA for Construction
Sr.
Professional I Professional I
Whitson Engineers
TOTAL HOURS
Subtotal Labor:
Agency Meetings, Coordination and Comment Resolution
Optional Tasks
TOTAL COST:
EXHIBIT B
Packet Page 209
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting Consultant’s indemnification of Agency, and prior to commencement of Work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to Agency.
Note: Verify minimum limit for each coverage with Risk Manager.
General liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
Automobile liability insurance. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the services required by this Agreement.
Note: May need to delete workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance requirements for certain sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations without employees.
Workers’ compensation insurance. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).
Packet Page 210
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT C Consultant shall submit to Agency, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of Agency, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
Note: If the required limits for general liability, auto and employer’s liability are $1 million or less, the following paragraph may be omitted.
Umbrella or excess liability insurance. [Optional depending on limits required].
Consultant shall obtain and maintain an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage liability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:
• A drop down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason;
• Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement; • Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; • Policies shall “follow form” to the underlying primary policies; and • Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies.
Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance to Agency as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by Agency’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance.
Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with Agency at all times during the term of this contract. Agency reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Duration of coverage. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by Consultant, with exception of professional liability, shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by Agency shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a Packet Page 211
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT C provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of Agency before the Agency’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
Agency’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Agency has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Agency will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Agency will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments.
In the alternative, Agency may cancel this Agreement.
Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the Agency’s Risk Manager.
Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against Agency, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees 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 Agency, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). Consultant acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the Agency to inform Consultant of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the Agency nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Agency requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Agency.
Packet Page 212
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT C Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to Agency with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that Agency and its officers, officials, employees, and agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.
Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to Agency and approved of in writing.
Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
Pass through clause. Consultant agrees to require that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by Consultant, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of Consultant. Consultant agrees to monitor and review all such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section.
Consultant agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to Agency for review.
Agency’s right to revise specifications. The Agency reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the Consultant ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the Consultant, the Agency and Consultant may renegotiate Consultant’s compensation.
Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by Agency. Agency reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by Agency.
Timely notice of claims. Consultant shall give Agency prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from Consultant’s performance under this AGREEMENT, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
Packet Page 213
BROADWAY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT- Phase 2 EXHIBIT C Additional insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
Packet Page 214
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
FOR
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
BROADWAY AVENUE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
JANUARY 2022
Submit proposal to:
Public Works Engineering
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
PROPOSALS DUE BY 4:00 P.M. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022
Packet Page 215
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3 II. SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................. 4 III. FORM AND CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL ...................................................................... 5
1. Cover Letter .............................................................................................................. 5
2. Project Team ............................................................................................................. 5
3. Relevant Project Experience ..................................................................................... 6
4. Project Understanding and Approach ....................................................................... 6
5. Project Schedule ........................................................................................................ 6
6. Scope of Services ...................................................................................................... 6
7. Fee Proposal .............................................................................................................. 6 IV. PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION................................................................................. 7 V. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS .......................................................................... 7 Consultant Selection Timeline ............................................................................................ 8 Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................. 8 VI. ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF PROPOSAL .......................................................... 9 VII. ADDENDA AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................................ 9 VIII. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT .......................................... 9 IX. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................... 9 X. EXAMINATION OF PROPOSED MATERIAL ............................................................. 10 XI. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL .......................................................... 10 XII. DISQUALIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 10 XIII. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL ................................................................................ 11 XIV. PROHIBITION OF GIFTS ............................................................................................... 11 XV. NON-DISCRIMINATION/NON-PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 11 XVI. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ................................................................ 11 XVII. ATTACHMENTS ............................................................................................................. 12 Packet Page 216
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 3 -
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Seaside is seeking to retain qualified design professional engineering services to obtain all necessary permits, perform all requisite environmental studies and clearances, surveys and design of street improvements, and to prepare contract documents to enable the City to go out to bid for the construction of the Broadway Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project (Project).
Project includes the Environmental and Design phases of a road diet on Broadway Avenue from Fremont Boulevard to General Jim Moore Boulevard. The road diet will transform a 4-lane roadway to a 2-lane roadway with curb extensions, and will add class II bike lanes, roundabouts, and Safe Routes to School improvements including off-set crosswalk, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, and accessibility improvements. The Project will reduce Broadway Avenue to a single lane in each direction between Fremont Boulevard to General Jim Moore Boulevard and continue the road diet from West Broadway (Del Monte Blvd to Fremont Blvd).
The Project is state funded by the Active Transportation Program (ATP) and the Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP). The consultant contract will be separated into two separate phases Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) and Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) to comply with the program requirements. The estimated professional services contract amounts available for the PA&ED and PS&E are $600,000 and $1.576 M respectively. The preliminary construction estimate for the project is $9.50 M.
The Consultant must be fully familiar with all applicable local, state and federal guidelines and requirements of the Active Transportation Program funding as administered by CTC. The City of Seaside reserves the right to adjust the scope of services as deemed appropriate and necessary. The project must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures and requirements.
One consultant team will be selected to handle all the tasks within the Project which includes both the technical and administrative tasks associated with each phase of the project. The consultant will be working under the supervision of the City of Seaside, Department of Public Works.
The following studies to assist in the design effort have been completed:
• Pavement Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 Plans
• Project Specific ICE Study – prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates dated June 2020 • Conceptual Plan - prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates dated August 2020 The consultant services required are leading all the way up to a final plans, specifications and estimate package, which will be authorized in two separate phases; 1.) Project Approval & Environmental Document and 2.) Plans, Specifications & Estimate. The design team selected for this project shall have a demonstrated experience in complete street design, roundabout design, local knowledge, on-time project completion, and ability to adhere to project budgets.
Packet Page 217
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 4 -
II. SCOPE OF WORK
As outlined below, the Consultant shall complete all engineering and environmental documents and construction documents for the proposed improvements. These include, but are not limited to, preparation of appropriate CEQA document and contract bid documents (plans, specifications and construction cost estimates, or PS&Es).
The project scope shall include but not limited to the following tasks and deliverables:
Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) Phase Environmental review process and documentation shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Consultant team shall include a qualified team member who is proficient with CEQA guidelines. Environmental document shall be prepared by the consultant for City review and signature.
1. Provide project management services, including but not limited to, project administration, team/agency coordination, prepare project schedule, monthly progress meetings and reports, and overall leadership to ensure project success.
2. Provide public outreach services; assume two public workshops and one presentation at the City’s Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission combined meeting.
Prepare any necessary presentation exhibits and documents.
3. Provide utility identification, relocation, and coordination services.
4. Perform any necessary survey and base mapping. Using the conceptual plan exhibits as a starting point, Project Team is to further develop these into advance planning drawings, if necessary, to obtain project approval.
5. Coordinate with Monterey Salinas Transit (MST) for all adjacent transit facilities on Broadway.
6. Consultant team to prepare CEQA document but City will be signatory and will review and assist as needed.
7. Assist the City with acquiring a Baseline Agreement and request for authorization for PS&E phase.
Plans, Specifications & Estimate (PS&E) Phase:
Designs shall comply with all environmental requirements and will result in bid-ready PS&E packages to be submitted to the City. Consultant will be responsible for providing the Special Provisions section of contract specifications and revise as necessary the City provided “front end” or general provisions.
1. Develop "bid ready'' contract documents consisting of Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E). Assume 60% and 90% review cycles.
2. Project team to prepare necessary documents to self-certify right-of-way or obtain right of way certification from Caltrans.
3. Consultant team shall assist the City with ATP reporting requirements. Project team will be provided the most recent application documents that were used to apply for ATP Cycle
5. Packet Page 218
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 5 -
4. Project team shall prepare documents to secure temporary construction easements.
5. Project team shall assist the City with submission to Caltrans the request for authorization for the Construction Phase.
Construction management services are not included in this request for proposal. However, typical design support services during construction shall be listed as a line item in the proposal.
III. FORM AND CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL
Proposers must have a minimum of five (5) years of professional experience in roundabout and complete street design. They shall have completed a minimum of two (2) projects for public entities; completed the design for a minimum of one (1) similar facility with a current estimated construction cost of at least $10 million within the last five (5) years; shall have demonstrated experience of similar scope projects; have experience working with public institutions, Active Transportation Program grants, California Transportation Commission, and be familiar with conditions within the project location.
Proposals shall consist of responses to the sections below. Please clearly label and respond to all sections. The submissions are subject to a page limitation of twenty (20) pages in twelve-point font. The cover letter, table of contents, front and back covers, and section dividers and resumes are excluded from the page count. Proposers are requested to enclose certain information as exhibits, which will not count against the page limit and may also attach additional information as exhibits (which also will not count against the page limit). The City makes no assurances that any non-requested additional information in exhibits will be reviewed. The proposal shall be bound, with tabbed section dividers, and include the following sections in order within the page limitations:
1. Cover Letter
Include the primary consultant’s name and business address, as well as the Project Manager’s name, telephone number and email address. Summarize your understanding of the project and briefly introduce your team. The cover letter shall be signed by the person authorized to negotiate a contract for proposed services with the City of Seaside on behalf of submitting firm/team.
Address any exceptions to the Insurance and Indemnification requirements listed in Exhibit C of the Standard Consultant Agreement attached hereto as Attachment 1.
2. Project Team
Clearly identify the prime consultant, all subconsultants, and their respective roles. Show the project manager and the key staff proposed for this project, including subconsultants’ staff.
Excluding circumstances beyond the consultant’s control, it is expected that the project team proposed under this proposal will remain unchanged throughout the duration of the Project.
Replacement of key staff, without written approval of the City of Seaside, will not be permitted.
Include contact information and a brief summary of the Prime firm’s organization and history.
Provide a résumé of each key team members. Provide two references (name, title, agency, and telephone number) for the project manager and task leaders from similar type/size projects.
Packet Page 219
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 6 -
Include contact information and a brief summary of the each subconsulting firm’s organization, history, and two firm references. Provide a brief résumé (one page each) of each key team member.
Resumes shall be provided at exhibits to your proposal and will not count against the page limit.
3. Relevant Project Experience
Include similar type/size projects that your team has completed. Provide a project description, services provided, consulting fees and the project’s construction cost. Discuss whether the design and construction were completed on time and within budget. Identify any obstacles encountered and how it was resolved.
4. Project Understanding and Approach
Describe your firm/team’s understanding of the work to be performed and identify the approach for key services and/or issues anticipated for this project. Describe project manager’s and firm/team support and approach to managing project to ensure effort is completed on schedule and within established budget.
5. Project Schedule
Provide a schedule, from start to finish, showing phases and major benchmarks in the scope of work with reasonable completion expectations. Indicate stages of work, time frames, and your team’s ability to perform the required services in a timely manner. Allow three weeks for each submittal review by the City staff in the proposed schedule. Additionally, a progress meeting should be held to correspond immediately after City review of each submittal. Describe project manager’s and firm/team support and approach to managing project to ensure effort is completed on schedule and within established budget.
6. Scope of Services
Provide a detailed description of the proposed scope of services through PS&E, bid support, and construction support. The scope of services submitted with the consultant’s proposal must include a list and number of all deliverables, digital and hard copy, to be provided. Consultant must also plan for the necessary meetings for every aspect of the improvements program.
7. Fee Proposal
Provide your proposed fee in a separate, sealed envelope, plainly labeled “Fee Proposal” with the prime company’s name and project title. This RFP contains consultant services leading all the way up to a final plans, specifications and estimate package. However, the consultant team shall split their proposed fee schedule into two phases; 1.) Project Approval & Environmental Document and 2.) Plans, Specifications & Estimate. Consultant’s fee proposal for the second phase must remain active for a time period of no less than two (2) years. Any annual or standard rate increases that may occur within this time period must be clearly defined in the original fee proposal. The fee shall include separate services for PA&ED, PS&E including bid support, and design services Packet Page 220
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 7 -
during construction for each of the project components described earlier. The fee proposal shall include a cover letter stating the not to exceed fee, and separate fee schedules depicting individual project tasks, staff hours, and basic hourly charge rates. The fee proposal shall reflect all anticipated fee increases during the contract duration. The final contract price may be negotiated.
IV. PROCEDURES FOR SUBMISSION
All correspondence between the City and potential proposers will be by email in accordance with Section VI, “Addenda and Interpretation” below.
Three (3) bound copies of the proposal package are due by 4:00 PM Pacific Time on Thursday, February 10, 2022. The proposal package, including the sealed cost proposal, shall be labeled “Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project RFP” and submitted to the following address:
Engineering Division
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Please also submit by e-mail a single Adobe Acrobat® PDF file containing the entire proposal, excluding your cost proposal, to [email protected]. The e-mail subject line should read:
RFP-Broadway Complete Street Corridor
SUBMISSIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER THIS DEADLINE. SUBMISSIONS
TRANSMITTED BY FAX WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
All material submitted in accordance with this RFP becomes the property of the City and will not be returned.
V. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS
The consultant selection committee will evaluate each proposal and rank the consultant teams based on the response to items in Section III, technical information, qualifications and check of references provided in the proposal. Interviews are anticipated for this project and will be tentatively set as listed in the timeline below.
The issuance of this RFP constitutes only an invitation to present responses. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to determine whether or not any aspect of the response satisfactorily meets the criteria established in the RFP. The City reserves the right to seek additional information and/or clarification from the respondent, the right to confer with any respondent submitting a response and the right to reject any or all responses with or without cause. In the event that the RFP is withdrawn by the City for any reason, the City shall have no liability to any respondent for any costs or expense incurred with the preparation of this RFP or related work. The City reserves Packet Page 221
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 8 -
the right, at its sole discretion, to waive any irregularities or informality. The City may conduct interviews with any respondent it deems necessary.
The City of Seaside reserves the right to reject any and all responses for failure to meet the requirements contained herein, to waive any technicalities and to select the responses which, in the City’s sole judgment, best meets the requirements of the project.
Consultant Selection Timeline
Distribution of RFP January 6, 2022
Questions Due January 20, 2022
Response to Questions/Clarification February 27, 2022
RFP Submittal Deadline February 10, 2022 by 4:00pm
Proposal Ranking February 11, 2022 – March 4, 2022
Consultant Interviews (tentative) Week of March 7, 2022 Consultant Award (tentative) April 7, 2022
Evaluation Criteria
City staff will evaluate the materials provided in response to the Request for Proposals based on the following criteria:
1. Project Team (20%): This includes the team’s qualifications and relevant individual experience, unique qualifications of key personnel, time commitment of key members and the strength of the Organization Chart.
2. Project Understanding and Approach (30%): This includes demonstrated knowledge of the work required, explanation of the project, key components, local and best practice processes, and innovative approaches and internal measures for timely completion of project.
3. Scope (25%): This includes the relevance, completeness and logic of the scope.
4. Project Management (15%): This includes the ability to manage the project in a turnkey fashion, responsiveness to the City and its citizens’ needs, quality and timeliness of the deliverables and budget control.
5. References (10%): This includes record of producing quality product on similar projects on time and within budget.
The City reserves the right to conduct independent reviews and interview firms submitting proposals prior to making any selection. If the City elects, the top three proposals may be requested to participate in an interview. If your firm is selected to participate in an oral interview, you will be notified the week prior to the scheduled interview. The City will NOT be liable for any costs associated with your firm preparing its response to this RFP.
Packet Page 222
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 9 -
No Proposer will be allowed to modify the content of proposal at any time after the submission deadline, except in direct response to a request from the City for clarification or for an oral interview, provided that no such modification will result in a substantive amendment to the proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request and at its discretion waive any informality, technical defect or clerical error in any proposal.
VI. ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF PROPOSAL
The City reserves the right to accept or reject any and all proposals. The City also reserves the right to waive any informality or irregularity in any proposal. Additionally, the City may, for any reason, decide not to award an agreement as a result of this RFP or cancel the RFP process. The City shall not be obligated to respond to any proposal submitted, nor be legally bound in any manner by the submission of the proposal. The Department of Public Works will make a recommendation to the City Manager or City Council, as applicable, regarding the selection of Consultant based upon an evaluation of the proposals. The City reserves the right to negotiate project deliverables and associated costs.
VII. ADDENDA AND INTERPRETATION
The City shall not be responsible for nor be bound by any oral instructions or interpretations or explanations issued by the City or its representatives. Should discrepancies or omissions be found in this RFP or should there be a need to clarify the RFP, you may request clarification in writing or by email to [email protected]
Any other contact with City personnel related to this RFP, prior to the formal appointment of the consultant, is prohibited. Such requests for clarification shall be delivered to the City at least ten (10) business days prior to the proposal due date. Any City response to a request for clarification will be made in the form of an addendum to this RFP and posted on the city’s website https://www.ci.seaside.ca.us/Bids.aspx.. All addenda shall become part of this RFP. Proposals shall contain all addenda signed and dated by the Proposer.
VIII. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT
Upon conclusion of the RFP process, the Department of Public Works will recommend a firm to enter into negotiations for the assignments described. The recommended Proposer shall enter into contract negotiations with the City in substantial conformity with the selected proposal and the form of the City’s Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 1).
IX. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The selected Consultant, at Consultant’s sole cost and expense and for the full term of the Agreement or any extension thereof, shall obtain and maintain at least all of the insurance requirements outlined in Exhibit C to the City’s Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 1).
Packet Page 223
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 10 -
All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by the City of Seaside as to form and content. The selected Consultant agrees to provide the City with a copy of said policies, certificates and/or endorsements on the requested forms. The selected Consultant shall satisfy these insurance requirements prior to approval of the Agreement. Please address any issues with respect to insurance requirements in your response in Section II, above.
X. EXAMINATION OF PROPOSED MATERIAL
The submission of a proposal shall be deemed a representation and certification by the Proposer that they have investigated all aspects of the RFP, that they are aware of the applicable facts pertaining to the RFP process, its procedures and requirements, and that they have read and understood the RFP. No request for modification of the statement shall be considered after its submission on grounds that the Proposer was not fully informed as to any facts or condition.
XI. PUBLIC NATURE OF PROPOSAL MATERIAL
Responses to this RFP become the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the Public Works Department recommends a Proposer to the City Manager or City Council, as applicable, all proposals received in response to this RFP become a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal which are defined by the Proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary.” The City shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if they are not plainly marked as “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Any proposal which contains language purporting to render all or significant portions of the proposal “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary” shall be regarded as non-responsive.
Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City of Seaside may not be in a position to establish that the information that a Proposer submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked “Confidential,” “Trade Secret,” or “Proprietary,” the City will provide the Proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the Proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court of competent jurisdiction.
XII. DISQUALIFICATION
Factors such as, but not limited to, any of the following may be considered just cause to disqualify a proposal without further consideration:
A. Evidence of collusion, directly or indirectly, by Proposer in regard to the amount, terms, or conditions of this proposal;
B. Any attempt to improperly influence any member of the selection staff; Packet Page 224
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 11 -
C. Existence of any lawsuit, unresolved contractual claim or dispute between Proposer and the City;
D. Evidence of incorrect information submitted as part of the proposal; E. Evidence of Proposer’s inability to successfully complete the responsibilities and obligations of the proposal; and
F. Proposer’s default under any agreement that results in termination of the Agreement.
XIII. NON-CONFORMING PROPOSAL
A proposal shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions of these RFP instructions and specifications. Any alteration, omission, addition, variance, or limitation of form or to a proposal may be sufficient grounds for non-acceptance of the proposal, at the sole discretion of the City.
XIV. PROHIBITION OF GIFTS
City of Seaside officials are subject to several legal and policy limitations regarding receipt of gifts from persons, firms, or corporations either engaged in business with the City, or proposing to do business with the City. The offering of any illegal gift shall be grounds to disqualify a Proposer.
To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Proposer should not offer any gifts or souvenirs, even of minimal value, to City officers or employees. The Proposer shall be subject to the City’s prohibition.
XV. NON-DISCRIMINATION/NON-PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT
The successful Proposer shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person on the basis of race sex, color, age, religion, sexual orientation, actual or perceived gender identity, disability, ethnicity, or national origin, in connection with or related to the performance of City of Seaside contracts.
XVI. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
A. It is anticipated that the award of the Agreement resulting from the RFP shall include terms and conditions similar to those referenced in the City’s Standard Consultant Agreement (Attachment 1). Exceptions proposed by the Proposer, if any, to the terms and conditions included in the City’s Standard Consultant Agreement should be included in the proposal.
The City reserves the right to consider any proposal exceptions during its evaluation of the acceptability of a proposal.
Packet Page 225
City of Seaside
Request for Proposal to Provide Design Professional Services for Broadway Avenue Complete Street Corridor Improvements Project - 12 -
B. This RFP does not commit the City to pay any costs incurred in the submission of the proposal or in making any necessary studies or analysis in preparation of submission of the proposal.
C. The City reserves the right without limitation to:
1. Execute an agreement with one or more Proposers based solely on the proposal and any approved additions;
2. Enter into an agreement with another Proposer in the event that the originally selected Proposer defaults or fails to execute an agreement with the City;
3. Enter into negotiations with one or more Proposers;
4. Modify and re-issue the RFP;
5. Take action regarding the RFP as may deemed to be in the best interest of the City.
D. The City reserves the right to verify any information provided during the RFP process. The City may contact references listed or any other person known to have contracted with Proposer.
E. An agreement shall not be binding or valid with the City unless and until it is executed by authorized representatives of the City and of the Proposer.
XVII. ATTACHMENTS
1. City’s Standard Consultant Agreement
2. Conceptual Plans prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates Packet Page 226
GENERAL JIM MOORE BLVD
YOSEMITE ST
FREMONT BLVD
BROADWAY AVE
TERRACE ST
SAN LUCAS ST
NOCHE BUENAS ST
MESCAL ST
COSTA ST
ELM AVE
SONOMA AVE
MINGO AVE
WANDA AVE
SAN PABLO AVE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
SCHOOL OF THE ARTS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF SEASIDE, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
CITY PROJECT #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
30% PRELIMINARY PLANS
PROJECT AREA
NOT TO SCALE
TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY CITY OF SEASIDE DESIGN STANDARDS, 2022 CALTRANS REVISED STANDARD PLANS, AND THE APRIL 2014 CALIFORNIA MUTCD
COVER SHEET
1 CV-01
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DESIGN ENGINEER'S NOTES
“ ” “ ”
ROUNDABOUT LOCATIONS
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SHEET INDEX
PROJECT AREA
Packet Page 227
BROADWAY AVE KENNETH ST LOWELL ST LUXTON ST JUDSON ST WARING ST FLORES ST HARDING ST DARWIN ST VALLEJO ST LUZERN ST SOTO ST HIGHLAND ST YOSEMITE ST
BROADWAY AVE
FREMONT AVE TERRACE ST SAN LUCAS ST NOCHE BUENAS ST ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH MATCHLINE STA 40+00 LINE "B"- SEE BELOW LEFT
HORIZONTAL CONTROL & TYPICAL SECTIONS
HC-01_TX-01 2 MATCHLINE STA 40+00 LINE "B"- SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 66+00 LINE "B"- SEE SHEET 3 Packet Page 228
BROADWAY AVE ANCON ST COSTA ST BALFOUR CT
MESCAL ST
GENERAL JIM MOORE BLVD
LINE TABLE
POINT TABLE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HORIZONTAL CONTROL & TYPICAL SECTIONS
HC-02_TX-02
3 MATCHLINE STA 66+00 LINE "B"- SEE SHEET 2
BASIS OF BEARINGS AND COORDINATES:
SURVEY NOTES:
Packet Page 229
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
HORIZONTAL CONTROL & TYPICAL SECTIONS
----
4 Packet Page 230
FREMONT BLVD
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-01 5 MATCHLINE STA 18+00 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE STA 18+00 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 22+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 6 Packet Page 231
TERRACE ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-02
6 MATCHLINE STA 22+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
5 MATCHLINE STA 28+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
7 DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 232
BROADWAY AVE SAN LUCAS ST
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-03
7 MATCHLINE STA 28+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
6 MATCHLINE STA 34+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
8 DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 233
NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-04
8 MATCHLINE STA 34+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
7 MATCHLINE STA 40+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
9 DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 234
KENNETH ST LOWELL ST LUXTON ST
BROADWAY AVE JUDSON ST WARING ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
MATCHLINE STA 40+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 8
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-05 9 MATCHLINE STA 45+00 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT
MATCHLINE STA 45+00 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT
MATCHLINE STA 48+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 10
DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 235
HARDING ST DARWIN ST FLORES ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-06
10 MATCHLINE STA 48+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET
9 MATCHLINE STA 54+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 11
DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 236
VALLEJO ST LUZERN ST SOTO ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-07
11 MATCHLINE STA 54+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 10 MATCHLINE STA 60+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 12
DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 237
BROADWAY AVE HIGHLAND ST YOSEMITE ST
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-08
12 MATCHLINE STA 60+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 11 MATCHLINE STA 65+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 13
DEMOLITION NOTES
Packet Page 238
ANCON ST
BROADWAY AVE COSTA ST BALFOUR CT
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-09
13 DEMOLITION NOTES MATCHLINE STA 65+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 19 MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 75+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 14 MATCHLINE STA 65+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 12 MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT Packet Page 239
MESCAL ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
DEMOLITION PLANS
DM-11
14 DEMOLITION NOTES MATCHLINE STA 75+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 13 Packet Page 240
TERRACE ST
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-01
15 MATCHLINE STA 28+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 16
CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 241
BROADWAY AVE SAN LUCAS ST
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-02
16 MATCHLINE STA 28+00 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 15 MATCHLINE STA 33+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 17
CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 242
KENNETH ST NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-03
17 MATCHLINE STA 34+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 16
CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 243
WARING ST HARDING ST FLORES ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-04
18 CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 244
HIGHLAND ST YOSEMITE ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-05
19 MATCHLINE STA 65+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 20
CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 245
ANCON ST
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE COSTA ST BALFOUR CT
LEGEND ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-06
20 MATCHLINE STA 65+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 19 MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT CONSTRUCTION NOTES MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 75+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 21 TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 246
MESCAL ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LAYOUT PLANS
L-07
21 MATCHLINE STA 75+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 20
CONSTRUCTION NOTES TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 247
LEGEND TERRACE ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-01
22 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 248
BROADWAY AVE SAN LUCAS ST
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-02
23 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 249
NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-03
24 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 250
BROADWAY AVE FLORES ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-04
25 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 251
BROADWAY AVE
YOSEMITE ST
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-05
26 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 252
COSTA ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HV-06
27 HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 253
MESCAL ST
BROADWAY AVE
LEGEND
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL PLANS
HV-07
28 CONSTRUCTION NOTES
Packet Page 254
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
29 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 255
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
30 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 256
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
31 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 257
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
32 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 258
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
33 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 259
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
34 CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 260
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CURB RAMP ENLARGEMENTS
----
35 TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 261
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
36 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 262
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
37 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 263
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
38 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 264
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
39 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 265
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
40 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 266
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS
----
41 TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 267
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
----
42 ISLAND ENLARGEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL Packet Page 268
TERRACE ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-01
43 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 269
BROADWAY AVE SAN LUCAS ST
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-02
44 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 270
NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-03
45 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 271
FLORES ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-04
46 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 272
YOSEMITE ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-05
47 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 273
BROADWAY AVE COSTA ST
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CG-06
48 CONTOUR GRADING
TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 274
MESCAL ST
BROADWAY AVE
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
CONTOUR GRADING
CG-07
49 TO BE PROVIDED AT FUTURE SUBMITTAL
Packet Page 275
14 + 00 15 + 00 16 + 00 17 + 00
+
00 13
+
00 14
18 + 00 19 + 00 20 + 00 21+ 00
NORTH
DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-01
30 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 Packet Page 276
22 + 00 23 + 00 24 + 00 25 + 00 26 + 00 27 + 00 28
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
31 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-02
Packet Page 277
28 + 00 29 + 00 30 + 00 31+ 00 32 + 00 33 + 00 34 + 00
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
32 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-03
Packet Page 278
35 + 00 36 + 00 37 + 00 38 + 00 39 + 00 40 + 00
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
33 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-04
Packet Page 279
41+ 00 42 + 00 43 + 00 44 + 00 45 + 00 46 + 00 47 + 00
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
34 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-05
Packet Page 280
48 + 00 49 + 00 50 + 00 51+ 00 52 + 00
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
35 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-06
Packet Page 281
53 + 00 54 + 00 55 + 00 56 + 00 57 + 00 58 + 00 59 + 00 + 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
+ 00 11
+ 00 12
+ 00 13
NORTH
36 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-07
Packet Page 282
00 60 + 00 61+ 00 62 + 00 63 + 00
+ 00 10
+ 00 11
+
00 13
+
00 14
+
00 15
NORTH
37 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-08
Packet Page 283
64 + 00 65 + 00 66 + 00 67 + 00 68 + 00 69 + 00 70 + 00 + 00 15
+ 85 15
NORTH
38 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-09
Packet Page 284
71+ 00 72 + 00 73 + 00 74 + 00 75 + 00 76 + 00 00
+ 00 12
+ 13.93 13
+ 00 10
+ 00 11 11
NORTH
39 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-10
Packet Page 285
77 + 00 78 + 00 78 + 99.54
+
00 12
+
00 13
+
00 14
NORTH
40 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
29 DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
D-11
Packet Page 286
DRAINAGE DETAILS
DD-01
41 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
XX
Packet Page 287
DRAINAGE DETAILS
DD-02
42 ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
XX
Packet Page 288
BROADWAY AVE
FREMONT BLVD TERRACE ST
BROADWAY AVE SAN LUCAS ST ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH MATCHLINE STA 22+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-01
50 MATCHLINE STA 22+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE STA 32+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 51
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
LEGEND
ENTRANCE LINE DETAIL 4
GREEN BIKE LANE CONFLICT MARKING DETAIL 1 BIKE BOX DETAIL 2
TRIPLE FOUR RAISED
CROSSWALK 3
Packet Page 289
KENNETH ST LOWELL ST NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE LUXTON ST JUDSON ST WARING ST HARDING ST FLORES ST BROADWAY AVE ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-02
51 MATCHLINE STA 32+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET MATCHLINE STA 42+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT 50 MATCHLINE STA 42+50 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 52+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 52
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
LEGEND
Packet Page 290
DARWIN ST VALLEJO ST LUZERN ST SOTO ST HIGHLAND ST
BROADWAY AVE
BROADWAY AVE
YOSEMITE ST ANCON ST ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-03
52 MATCHLINE STA 52+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 51 MATCHLINE STA 61+50 LINE "B" - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE STA 61+50 LINE "B" - SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA 52+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 53
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
MATCHLINE STA 12+00 LINE "Y" - SEE SHEET 54
MATCHLINE STA 15+50 LINE "Y" - SEE SHEET 55
LEGEND
Packet Page 291
BROADWAY AVE COSTA ST BALFOUR CT
MESCAL ST
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-04
53 MATCHLINE STA 70+50 LINE "B" - SEE SHEET 52
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES LEGEND
Packet Page 292
YOSEMITE ST
YOSEMITE ST ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-05
54 SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
NORTH MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE STA 12+00 LINE "Y" - SEE SHEET 52 MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE RIGHT LEGEND
Packet Page 293
YOSEMITE ST
YOSEMITE ST
YOSEMITE ST ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SIGNING & STRIPING PLANS
SS-06
55 MATCHLINE STA 15+50 LINE "Y" - SEE SHEET 52
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
NORTH
NORTH MATCHLINE - SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE RIGHT LEGEND
Packet Page 294
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS 48 ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 45 BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 44 CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 112 EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA 5 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 183 ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY 5 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 108 ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT 5 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 23 RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 55 SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE 5 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW 87 SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE 5 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW GRASSES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS 111 DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS 1 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 116 MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC 1 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 136 MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS 1 GAL. 3` O.C. LOW INERT MATERIAL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS 4 BOULDER / 4' DIA ROCK - - 37 BOULDER / 3' DIA ROCK - - LID PLANTS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS 192 CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE 1 GAL. 2` O.C. MODERATE
118 CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE 1 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW 14 JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH 1 GAL. 2` O.C. LOW INERT MATERIAL QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT. SPACING WUCOLS 8,330 SF ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA ROCK - - 5,423 SF ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA ROCK - - ® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LS-00
63 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND SCHEDULE
1. THE WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS AND THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF THE APPLICABLE CITY AND/OR REGIONAL STANDARDS. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THESE
STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE AND ACCURATELY INTERPRET THESE PLANS.
2. ALL QUANTITIES LISTED IN THE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. IN THE CASE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES, PLANS SHALL OVERRIDE THE LANDSCAPE AND BID SCHEDULE QUANTITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND BASE THEIR BID ACCORDINGLY.
3. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ESTABLISHING SUBGRADES IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS WORK. INSPECT SUBGRADES PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK TO CONFIRM SUBGRADE DEPTHS AND GRADES. ADVISE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF DISCREPANCIES WITH DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE LEFT FREE OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND/OR TOXIC MATERIAL AND GRADED TO A LEVEL TO PERMIT LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION. TRENCHES OR OTHER FILLED EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE COMPACTED PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION.
4. SITE GRADING NECESSITATED BY THE WORK AS IT PROGRESSES AND NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON THE PLANS WILL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL WORK.
5. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE UNIFORMLY GRADED SO THAT FINISHED SURFACES CONFORM TO THE TYPICAL SECTIONS AND PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN. FINISHED SURFACES SHALL BE REASONABLY SMOOTH, COMPACTED, AND FREE FROM IRREGULAR SURFACE DRAINAGE. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ESTABLISHING THE FINISH GRADE AND SHALL BEAR FINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPER SURFACE DRAINAGE OF PLANTED AREAS.
6. AFTER ROUGH GRADING HAS OCCURRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN AGRONOMIC SOILS REPORT AND SUBMIT TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO AMENDMENTS AND/OR PLANTING. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY RECOMMENDATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
7. BACKFILL MIX SHALL BE PLACED IN 6" LIFTS AND TAMPED INTO PLACE AROUND THE PLANT. NO TRANSPLANTING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SOIL IS EXCESSIVELY WET. DO NOT COUNTERSINK AROUND CACTI OR SUCCULENTS. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM PLANT.
8. ALL TREES SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, ALL SHRUBS AND ACCENTS A MINIMUM OF 24", AND ALL GROUNDCOVERS 18" FROM EDGE OF CURBS, WALKS, WALLS, PADS, ETC., UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
9. EXCAVATE PITS, AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. LOOSEN HARD SUBSOIL IN BOTTOM OF PIT. TEST DRAINAGE OF TREE, SHRUB AND PLANT PITS BY FILLING WITH WATER TWICE IN SUCCESSION. THE RETENTION OF WATER IN PLANTING PITS FOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SUBMIT IN WRITING A PROPOSAL FOR THE CORRECTION TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH WORK.
10. IF ROCK, UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, ADVERSE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED IN EXCAVATION FOR PLANTING OF ANY PLANT MATERIAL, NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. NEW
LOCATIONS MAY BE SELECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, OR INSTRUCTIONS MAY BE ISSUED TO DIRECT REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTION. PROCEED WITH WORK ONLY AFTER APPROVAL OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
11. DO NOT MAKE SUBSTITUTIONS. IF SPECIFIED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IS NOT OBTAINABLE, SUBMIT PROOF OF
NON-AVAILABILITY FROM AT LEAST FIVE SOURCES TO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, TOGETHER WITH PROPOSAL FOR USE OF EQUIVALENT MATERIAL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.
12. ALL PLANT MATERIAL AND SPECIFICATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
13. LAY OUT INDIVIDUAL TREE AND PLANT LOCATIONS AND AREAS FOR MULTIPLE PLANTINGS, STAKE LOCATIONS AND OUTLINE AREAS AND SECURE THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE'S ACCEPTANCE BEFORE START OF PLANTING WORK. MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS AS DIRECTED.
14. ALL SHRUBS SHALL HAVE A FULL HEAD THAT COVERS THE CAN DIAMETER (CAN FULL) AND A MINIMUM OF THREE STEMS/BRANCHES.
15. FINISH GRADE FOR PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE 1" BELOW ALL CURBS, WALKS AND PAVING WITH SMOOTH EVEN LINES AT EDGES OF STRUCTURES.
16. FINISH LANDSCAPE GRADES SHALL SLOPE AT A 2% GRADE AWAY FROM CURBS, WALKS, AND WALLS.
17. PROVIDE SAMPLES OF PROPOSED ROCK MULCH SHOWING COLOR, GRADATION SIZE RANGE AND TEXTURE INCLUDING PROPOSED SOURCE. PROVIDE 1/2 CUBIC FOOT SAMPLE OF EACH.
18. ANY ROCK MULCH OR DECOMPOSED GRANITE SHALL NOT CONTAIN LUMPS OR BALLS OF CLAY, CALICHE, ORGANIC MATTER OR CALCAREOUS COATING. PROVIDE WEED BARRIER UNDER ALL DG AND/OR ROCK MULCH. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SUFFICIENT QUANTITY IS AVAILABLE FROM A SINGLE SOURCE TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE SAMPLES PRIOR TO ORDERING.
19. NO JOB WILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL ALL CURBS, PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALKS HAVE BEEN SWEPT CLEAN OF ALL DIRT AND DEBRIS ACCORDING TO PLANS.
20. IT IS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ANY PERMITS REQUIRED. (SEE THE CITY GENERAL
CONDITIONS)
21. ALL CONSTRUCTION ROADS AND COMPACTED AREAS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE SCARIFIED AND LOOSENED TO A DEPTH OF 12" PRIOR TO LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
WORK BEGINNING
22. PLANTINGS WITHIN THE SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE LINE SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT NO LIMBS HANG LOWER THAN SEVEN (7) FEET AND SHRUBS OR OTHER PLANTS PLANTED WITHIN THE SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE LINE SHALL BE NO TALLER THAN TWO (2) FEET AT FULL GROWTH.
GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES
1. THE TERM “LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT” USED HEREIN SHALL MEAN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WHO HAS SIGNED AND SEALED THESE PLANS AND IS IN RESPONSIBLE CHARGE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN. THE TERM “CONTRACTOR” USED HEREIN SHALL MEAN ANY GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR USING THESE PLANS.
ANY AGENCY SIGNATURE OR APPROVAL ON THESE PLANS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF ANY OF THESE NOTES.
2. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL NOT PROVIDE, OBSERVE, COMMENT ON NOR ENFORCE ANY SAFETY MEASURES OR REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY MEASURES AND
SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAME AND COMPLYING WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS, AND REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT SHE/HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND
COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOBSITE CONDITIONS AND SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS.
3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S MEANS AND
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION, TECHNIQUES, EQUIPMENT CHOICE AND USAGE, SEQUENCE, SCHEDULE, SAFETY
PROGRAMS, OR SAFETY PRACTICES, NOR SHALL THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OR RESPONSIBILITY TO STOP OR DIRECT THE WORK OF ANY CONTRACTOR.
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER, THEIR AGENTS
AND EMPLOYEES, HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, DEMANDS, JUDGMENTS, LOSS, DAMAGES, COSTS,
EXPENSES, FEES OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
5. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER, AN INTERPRETATION BEFORE DOING ANY RELATED OR IMPACTED WORK.
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PROTECT THE PROPERTY FROM ANY EROSION AND
SILTATION THAT RESULT FROM CONTRACTOR OPERATIONS BY APPROPRIATE MEANS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE
PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE BY WHOMEVER IS TO BE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE.
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO STARTING WORK NEAR THEIR FACILITIES AND SHALL COORDINATE WORK WITH UTILITY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES.
8. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED FROM A SEARCH OF READILY AVAILABLE RECORDS. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID UTILITY INFORMATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY
MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN HEREON AND ANY OTHERS NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. ALL DAMAGES THERETO CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE APPROPRIATE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS AT THE SOLE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.
9. THE LOCATION, ELEVATIONS, SIZE, TYPE AND CONDITION OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE
PROPOSED WORK INDICATED ON THESE PLANS SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THE CONTRACTOR BY FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WORK. THE CONTRACTOR WILL
IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING IF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTING INFORMATION IS FOUND.
10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE EXPLORATORY EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AS
NEEDED, SUFFICIENTLY AHEAD OF CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT REVISIONS TO PLANS IF REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY
DUE TO THE ACTUAL LOCATION, SIZE, TYPE, OR CONDITION OF EXISTING FACILITIES DIFFERING FROM WHAT IS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND REPLACEMENT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER.
12. SHOULD CONFLICTING INFORMATION BE FOUND ON THE PLANS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING IMMEDIATELY BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK IN QUESTION.
13. ANYTHING MENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, IF ANY, AND NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, OR SHOWN ON THE
DRAWINGS AND NOT MENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS, SHALL BE OF LIKE EFFECT AS IF SHOWN OR MENTIONED IN BOTH.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NOTES
I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AB-1881 AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN. ________________ RANDALL A. KOPFF JR, LLA 6633
PLANT SCHEDULE
1. LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL NOT BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR SHALL
ENSURE THAT ALL PLANTS RECEIVE APPROPRIATE WATERING TO ESTABLISH HEALTHY AND DEEP ROOT GROWTH DURING THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR. EACH WATERING SHALL BE OF SUCH QUANTITY AS TO PROVIDE OPTIMUM GROWTH CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AND MEANS FOR THE PROPER APPLICATION OF WATER TO LANDSCAPED AREAS NOT PROVIDED WITH AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAND WATER PLANTING AREAS AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE ACTIVE GROWTH KEEPING AREAS MOIST BUT NOT SATURATED AND REGULATE WATERING AS NECESSARY TO AVOID EROSION AND GULLYING.
3. FOLLOWING THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WARRANTY WHICH GUARANTEES ALL PLANTS FOR ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT. THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ANY PLANT WHICH HAS DIED, AND THE PLANT REPLACEMENT SHALL BE THE SAME SIZE CONTAINER AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS.
4. WATER SUPPLY SHALL BE CLEAN, FREE OF SUSPENDED PARTICLES, ALGAE, OR CHEMICALS THAT MAY FORM INSOLUBLE PRECIPITATES IN THE EQUIPMENT OR MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO PLANTINGS.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST, RELOCATE, SALVAGE, REINSTALL AND/OR FURNISH AND INSTALL NEW IRRIGATION
COMPONENTS IN LIKE KIND, FOR ANY ADJACENT EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM(S) IMPACTED BY THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND INSURE THAT THEY ARE IN FULL WORKING ORDER.
IRRIGATION NOTES
Packet Page 295
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-01
64 LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
BROADWAY AVE TERRACE ST
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 296
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-02
65 LANDSCAPE PLAN SAN LUCAS ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 297
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-03
66 LANDSCAPE PLAN NOCHE BUENA ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 298
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-04
67 LANDSCAPE PLAN FLORES ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 299
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-05
68 LANDSCAPE PLANS
YOSEMITE ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 300
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LS-06
69 LANDSCAPE PLANS COSTA ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 301
SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS X 'EMERALD CARPET' / EMERALD CARPET MANZANITA
BERBERIS AQUIFOLIUM 'COMPACTA' / COMPACT OREGON GRAPE
CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS / CARMEL CREEPER
EPILOBIUM CANUM / CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA
ERIGERON GLAUCUS / SEASIDE DAISY
ERIOGONUM PARVIFOLIUM / CLIFF BUCKWHEAT
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA 'LITTLE SUR' / LITTLE SUR COFFEEBERRY
SALVIA APIANA COMPACTA / COMPACT WHITE SAGE
SALVIA MELLIFERA 'GREEN CARPET' / GREEN CARPET BLACK SAGE
GRASSES BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
DESCHAMPSIA CESPITOSA / TUFTED HAIR GRASS
MELICA IMPERFECTA / IMPERFECT MELIC
MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
BOULDER / 4' DIA
BOULDER / 3' DIA
LID PLANTS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
CAREX PANSA / MEADOW SEDGE
CAREX TUMULICOLA / FOOTHILL SEDGE
JUNCUS PATENS / CALIFORNIA GRAY RUSH
INERT MATERIAL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
ROCK MULCH / 3/8" DIA
ROCK MULCH / 1"-3" DIA
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
NORTH
LANDSCAPE PLANS
LS-07
70 MESCAL ST
BROADWAY AVE
PLANT LEGEND (SEE SHEET LS-00 FOR FULL SCHEDULE)
SITE NOTES
STANDARD GRAY CONCRETE, INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND OTHER
CONCRETE SURFACING (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
DECORATIVE PAVING (TYP)
BIKE LANE (TYP)
SEE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Packet Page 302
® Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
CITY OF SEASIDE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
BROADWAY AVE COMPLETE STREET CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
75 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LANDSCAPE DETAILS
LS-08
71 6"
NOTES:
1. REFERENCE PLANTING
SPECIFICATIONS/ SPECIAL
PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
2. DOUBLE STAKE ALL TREES
3. FOR SINGLE STAKED TREES,
PLACE STAKE ON WINDWARD
SIDE OF TREE.
4. FOR DOUBLE STAKED TREES,
PLACE STAKES
PERPENDICULAR TO WINDWARD
SIDE OF TREE.
5. LOCATE ALL STAKES OUTSIDE
OF ROOTBALL. DO NOT DRIVE
STAKES INTO ROOTBALL. STAKE
SHALL BE DRIVEN MIN. 24" INTO
NATIVE SOIL AT BOTTOM OF
PLANTING PIT.
6. REMOVE ANYTHING (IE. BURLAP,
WIRES, STRAPS, ETC.) THAT
COULD GIRDLE TREE OR
RESTRICT TREE GROWTH.
2 X ROOTBALL WIDTH
3" MULCH LAYER
4" HIGH BERM, FIRMLY COMPACTED
6" DIA. CLEAR OF MULCH AT TRUNK FLARE
FINISHED GRADE.
FERTILIZER TABLETS (MAX 3" DEEP)
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING PIT
SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED
STABLE SUBSOIL SO THAT TOP OF
ROOTBALL IS 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
AND TO PREVENT SETTLING.
PREPARED BACKFILL
TYPICAL TREE PLANTING A NTS
TRUNK/ROOTBALL TO BE CENTERED AND
PLUMB/LEVEL IN PLANTING PIT
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
MINIMUM
PLAN
SECTION
24"
2" DIA. LODGEPOLE STAKES AND 4 RUBBER
TIES. TOP TREE TIES SHALL BE 6" ABOVE
BENDING MOMENT OF TREE. TIES SHOULD
PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY OF TRUNK BUT NOT
ALLOW RUBBING OF TRUNK AGAINST STAKE.
CUT STAKE OFF 6" ABOVE TIES.
6"
4"
4" PERFORATED PVC
STANDPIPE WITH GRATE
CAP AT MULCH LEVEL,
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC, EXTEND TO
BOTTOM OF PLANTER PIT
TREE TRUNK
RUBBER TREE TIES LOOPED
IN A "FIGURE 8" AROUND
TREE TRUNK AND STAKE
2" DIA. LODGEPILE STAKE
EACH TREE TIE SHALL BE
NAILED TO STAKE USING
GALVANIZED NAILS
TYPICAL SHRUB PLANTING B NTS
9-12"
2 X
ROOTBALL WIDTH
6"
3" MULCH LAYER AS SPECIFIED
4" HIGH BERM, FIRMLY COMPACTED
3" DIA. CLEAR OF MULCH FROM TRUNK
FINISHED GRADE.
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PLANTING PIT
SET ROOTBALL ON UNDISTURBED STABLE
SUBSOIL SO THAT TOP OF ROOTBALL IS 1"
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
PREPARED BACKFILL
PLANT TO BE INSTALLED CENTERED
AND PLUMB/LEVEL IN PLANTING PIT
FERTILIZER TABLETS (MAX 3" DEEP)
NOTES:
1. REFERENCE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS/
SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION.
2. WHEN SHRUBS MASSED WITH
GROUNDCOVER BEDS, ENTIRE BED TO BE
AMENDED.
3. WHEN SHRUBS ARE USED IN MASSES,
PRUNE ALL SHRUBS TO ACHIEVE
UNIFORM MASS/HEIGHT
SECTION
BEST FACE OF SHRUB TO FACE
FRONT OF PLANTING BED
REFER TO PLANT SCHEDULE AND
PLANS FOR SPACING/LAYOUT
PLAN
4"
FRONT OF BED
TYPICAL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING C NTS
2-3" MULCH LAYER
4" HIGH BERM FIRMLY COMPACTED
FINISHED GRADE.
UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL
PREPARED PLANTING SOIL. AMEND
ENTIRE BED FOR GROUNDCOVER BEDS.
SECTION
SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF
PLANTING PIT
BEST FACE OF PLANT TO FACE
FRONT OF PLANTING BED
REFER TO PLANT SCHEDULE AND
PLANS FOR SPACING/LAYOUT
PLAN
NOTES:
1. REFERENCE PLANTING
SPECIFICATIONS/ SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
FRONT OF BED
4"
ROOT CONTROL BARRIER D NTS
10' MIN.
10' MIN.
ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED WITHIN
10' OF TREE TRUNK
TREE TRUNK
ROOT BARRIER
TREE TRUNK
24" DEPTH ROOT BARRIER
FINISHED GRADE
TOP OF ROOT BARRIER 1/2"
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
BUT NOT HIGHER THAN
ADJACENT HARDSCAPE
ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED WITHIN
10' OF TREE TRUNK
HARDSCAPE, WALLS,
BUILDINGS, BROW
DITCHES, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS
SECTION
PLAN
NOTES:
1. ROOT BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO THE
IMPROVEMENT AND NOT AROUND THE ROOTBALL.
2. ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED WHEN TREE TRUNK IS WITHIN 10' OF
HARDSCAPE, WALLS, BUILDINGS, BROW DITCHES, OR OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS
CL TREE
ROCK COBBLE
E NTS
4-6" Ø ROCK COBBLE (WASHED RIVER ROCK)
PERMEABLE WEED BARRIER AND
PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE
DETENTION SWALE SUBGRADE,
SEE DRAINAGE DETAILS
1/2"-3/4" Ø ROCK MULCH
ADJACENT PAVING MATERIAL
(SEE PLANS)
WRAP WEED BARRIER ON SIDE
OF PAVING AND ADHERE W/
CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE
NOTE:
ROCK TO APPEAR THAT IS HAS SETTLED
OVER TIME INTO THE LANDSCAPE.
BOULDERS TO APPEAR MORE WEATHERED
AND ANGULAR IN APPEARANCE, RATHER
THAN ROUNDED OR FLAT, AND SHALL BE
FREE OF SHARP EDGES.
BOULDER TO BE SET A MINIMUM OF 1/3 OR A
MAXIMUM OF 2/3 BELOW GRADE.
PLACE FLAT SIDE OF ROCK BELOW GRADE OR
NATURAL FACE ABOVE GRADE.
MULCH (TYP)
BOULDER DETAIL F NTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT
Packet Page 303
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 9.C.
TO: City Council
FROM: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Sheri Damon, City Attorney
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: ADOPT FINDINGS FOR THE NEW FORT ORD COURTHOUSE
PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15096 AND 15162),
SURPLUS LANDS ACT, AND GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC
PLAN AND APPROVE PROPERTY AQUISITION AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT AND TAKE ALL SUCH
FURTHER ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
Review and Consider the Final EIR prepared by the Judicial Council. Adopt Resolution approving the Property Acquisition Agreement, making CEQA Findings, Surplus Lands Act and land use consistency findings and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Agreement and execute such other agreements and take all other actions necessary to implement the transfer to the State of California for use as the New Fort Ord Courthouse (previously referenced as the Monterey Family Justice Center Project).
BACKGROUND
The City Council received a statement of interest in potentially siting a Monterey Family Justice Center in Seaside on a part of the former Fort Ord in September 2018. In June 2019, the City Council supported collaboration with the Judicial Council of California ("Judicial Council") for the siting of a new courthouse on the former Fort Ord within the City of Seaside. The Resolution and reports noted the lengthy process involved in actually siting a Courthouse and that the Judicial Council of California ("Judicial Council") would be the lead agency. The Judicial Council has approval authority over th development of new courthouses in California pursuant to the Trial Court Facilities Act.
Packet Page 304
Item No. 9.C. Page 2 of 5
There were multiple events that occurred after 2018 that affected both the siting and the timing of a potential courthouse project. In response to Senate Bill 847 (2018), the Judicial Council was required to review all proposed and pending Courthouse projects in the state. On or about November 14, 2019, the Judicial Council approved the Reassessment of Trial Court Capital-Outlay Project Report and adopted the Five-Year Infrastructure Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 on July 24, 2020. This process placed the Monterey Courthouse located on Aguajito Road in the highest priority for replacement because of substantial seismic issues, among other deficiencies. Also in 2020, COVID19 substantially affected both the state's budget and operations. It was relayed to the City that the State was not moving forward on the new Monterey Family Justice Center (New Fort Ord Courthouse).
In late June 2021, the proposed New Fort Ord Courthouse was funded for the Acquisition and Performance Criteria Phases in the State Budget Act of 2021-2022. The City did not hear from the State until June 2021, when the City was notified there was a possibility that the State would be funding the first phase for the siting of a New Fort Ord Courthouse (acquisition and performance criteria) and that the projected timeline would require the selected site be ready for construction and completion within the next five years. Given the already existing planning, water allocation and proximity to main transportation corridors and public transit hubs, in July 2021, the City council authorized including a portion of the site within the Main Gate Specific Plan as a potential site along with the Broadway/General Jim site for the Court consideration. It was left to the state to proceed with the ultimate site selection process. The Judicial Council also refined a project description for the “New Fort Ord Courthouse Project” as the acquisition of an approximately 5-acre parcel of land located on a former Fort Ord Military Base property and construction of a new courthouse for the Monterey County Superior Court, which includes a three-story and approximately 83,000 square feet building, generally consisting of seven multi-purpose courtrooms, chambers, a central holding, jury assembly and self-help and support areas along with approximately 280 surface parking spaces partially covered with solar power generation capability. The new courthouse would consolidate most family law, probate, and civil operations into one central location to enhance the public’s access to justice, optimize the use of court facilities and relieve the current space shortfall, while replacing inadequate and obsolete buildings in Monterey County.
Site Selection Process:
In November 2021, the Judicial Council convened a project advisory group (PAG), which included members of the bench, court administration, Judicial Council staff, county administration, and Monterey County Bar Association under rule 10.184(d) the California Rules of Court to guide the project development. In compliance with the site selection policy, the PAG developed objective site selection criteria. The primary criteria identified for the site selection are access to justice, ability to meet site programming needs, proximity to justice partners, and economic benefit to the state and community.
Packet Page 305
Item No. 9.C. Page 3 of 5
The PAG concluded its recommendation for the considered sites by March 2022. The site selected was approved for analysis in the CEQA process by the Administrative Director of the Judicial Council on April 5, 2022. The site is approximately 5 acres in size and located at the southwe4st corner of Divarty Street and Second Avenue, a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 0331-151-013 ("Project Site"). On June 23, 2022 the State Public Works Board initiated the site acquisition process. The attached draft Property Acquisition Agreement would transfer the Projecft Site to the Judicial Council for the purpose of constructing the New Fort Ord Courthouse.
Environmental Review
The State of California, through the Judicial Council filed a Notice of Preparation of an environmental impact report for the New Fort Ord Courthouse on July 18, 2022. A community scoping meeting was held on September 7, 2022 and the Draft Environmental Impact report was released on April 6, 2023 with a public meeting held on May 2, 2023. The Final Environmental Impact Report was certified on August 21, 2023 and the Judicial Council filed a Notice of Determination with the California State Clearinghouse No. 2022070304. Attached to this report are the Findings and Mitigation Measures and Statement of Overriding Considerations that were adopted by the Judicial Council for the New Fort Ord Courthouse. The Draft and Final EIR are directly available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Fort-Ord-Courthouse-DraftCompiled-DEIR.pdf (Draft EIR) and https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Fort-OrdCourthouse-FEIR-COMBINED.pdf (Final EIR). The entire "New Fort Ord Courthouse" project detail and CEQA Environmental Impact Report and documents can be accessed at the following link: https://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-monterey.htm.. The attached resolution proposed for adoption finds that there has been no change to the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that would warrant subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA.
Land Use Consistency
The Judicial Council is exempt from complying with local land use rules and regulations. Nevertheless, the New Fort Ord Courthouse EIR evaluated consistency with the City's existing General Plan and Main Gate Specific Plan and concluded that the proposed courthouse is consistent. City staff agree with this conclusion. The Project’s property has a General Plan designation as Regional Commercial. The New Fort Ord Courthouse Project is consistent with that designation, and consistent with the General Plan as a whole. The Project is also consistent with the Main Gate Specific Plan (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-3 and 4.1-15). The City's Zoning Administrator, as described in the attached Memorandum, has evaluated the Courthouse use and concluded that the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project and the transfer of the Project Site Land to the State of California for use as a new courthouse is a use is of the same general character as the uses outlined in the matrix of uses within the Main Gate Specific Plan.
Packet Page 306
Item No. 9.C. Page 4 of 5
Additionally, it is anticipated that the New Fort Ord Courthouse will be a low impact water user. An early estimate, based upon the conceptual design, of internal water use is approximately 1.06 acre feet of water per year and an outside landscaping water demand of approximately 1.25 acre feet of water per year. These amounts will be coordinated with Marina Coast Water District as the project proceeds into design and to completion. The City currently has over 100 acre feet of water allocated to the overall Main Gate site.
Community and Economic Benefits
As proposed, the property acquisition is a no-cost acquisition, however, it is estimated the City will be paid approximately $300,000 for the preservation and maintenance of trees at the west end of the project. Additionally, the City will retain a 5% management fee for the installation of infrastructure to serve the Courthouse project (Estimated at over $200,000). The Project also intends to rough grade a sixteen-foot path adjacent to the south-side of the courthouse site incidental to the installation of a retaining wall. As an ancillary economic benefit, it is anticipated that a courthouse project would encourage economic activity around or within the development. Studies have documented that courthouses are economic development catalysts, with one study documenting cities that have courthouses have twenty-five percent more professional, technical and scientific businesses, and twenty-six percent more education, healthcare and social assistance related businesses within proximity to a county courthouse than cities that do not have a county courthouse. Other courthouse buildings, such as in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Inglewood are examples where courthouses are surrounded with different auxiliary businesses that feed economically from the courthouse. These businesses that support the courthouse are attorneys, paralegal, notary offices, therapeutic counselors, mediators and other professional supportive services. Additionally, eateries that surround courthouse buildings provide services to staff and individuals that require courthouse services. Finally, the courthouse building is located adjacent to California State University Monterey Bay and near the Monterey College of Law, providing educational opportunities and collaborations. Having a courthouse in the Main Gate area also increases both the diversity and viability of uses in and around the area. It is estimated that a minimum of 400 people a day will access the courthouse facilities, including approximately 90 fulltime staff.
As a part of this transaction, the City will obtain a Right of First Refusal in the instance the courthouse construction does not commence prior to 2035 and for 99 years thereafter should the courthouse be offered for sale in the future, thus giving the City and the community the right to retain the property for public use.
Potential Construction Timeline and Funding
In late June 2023, the proposed New Fort Ord Courthouse was funded for the construction phase in Packet Page 307
Item No. 9.C. Page 5 of 5
the State Budget Act of 2023-2024 in the amount of one hundred fifty-six million dollars ($156,000,000.00).
City site Preparation:
Develop site acquisition infrastructure plans and implement and complete work- March 2025.
Courthouse construction schedule as currently planned:
a. Judicial Council to Start site work, on-site building UG utilities, and foundations (Phase 1): 5/2025.
b. Judicial Council Start Building construction (Phase 2): 6/2026. c. Judicial Council Complete construction: 7/2028.
FISCAL IMPACT
Minimal compensation for City management and preservation of trees, City staff management of infrastructure extension and initial rough grading. Incidental spurring of retail activities and property tax related increases as the site develops supportive uses in and around the courthouse.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution Property Acquisition
2. Exhibit to Resolution - DRAFT Property Aquisition Agreement - New Fort Ord CH
3. Judicial Council CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Draft and Final EIR Available at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Fort4. Memorandum re Fort Ord Courthouse Project - Specific Plan Consistency from Andrew Myrick, acting as Zoning Administrator
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
_________________________________________
Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
Packet Page 308
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE AND
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
ADOPT FINDINGS FOR THE NEW FORT ORD COURTHOUSE PROJECT UNDER
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15096 AND 15162), SURPLUS LANDS ACT, AND GENERAL PLAN
AND SPECIFIC PLAN AND APPROVE PROPERTY AQUISITION AGREEMENT
WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT AND TAKE ALL SUCH FURTHER ACTIONS TO
IMPLEMENT THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, studies have documented that courthouses are economic development catalysts, with one study documenting cities that have courthouses have twenty-five percent more professional, technical and scientific businesses, and twenty-six percent more education, healthcare and social assistance related businesses within proximity to a county courthouse than cities that do not have a county courthouse; and WHEREAS, the City adopted Resolution 19-39 which supported collaboration with the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”) and its California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) analysis of a Family Justice Center, including potential development of a new courthouse in the vicinity of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Broadway Avenue; and WHEREAS, Resolution 19-39 further states that “upon completion of the CEQA review process and appropriation of funds or at such time as determined by the State of California to pursue a Family Justice Center in the vicinity of General Jim Moore Boulevard and Broadway Avenue, the City of Seaside would consider terms of sale which shall convey property necessary for the Family Justice Center upon price and terms beneficial and financially feasible to the State of California and the court system;” and WHEREAS, the Long Range Management Plan for the Successor Agency of the City of Seaside Redevelopment Agency, designates this property for transfer to the City to develop; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 2021, the City was notified that the Judicial Council had received funding to pursue the Courthouse project and notified the state that the Main Gate parcel was no longer under a negotiating contract; and WHEREAS, the Judicial Council has approval authority over the development of new courthouses in California pursuant to the Trial Court Facilities Act codified in Gov. Code §§ 70321 et seq; and
Packet Page 309
WHEREAS, the Judicial Council is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15051(a)), and prepared an Environmental Impact Report for the development of the “New Fort Ord Courthouse Project” and released it for public review on or about April 6, 2023 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022070304), and made the EIR available at https://www.courts.ca.gov/facilities-monterey.htm; and WHEREAS, the Judicial Council described the “New Fort Ord Courthouse Project” as the acquisition of an approximately 5-acre parcel of land located on a former Fort Ord Military Base property and construction of a new courthouse for the Monterey County Superior Court, which includes a three-stories and approximately 83,000 square feet, generally consisting of seven multi-purpose courtrooms, chambers, a central holding, jury assembly and self-help and support areas along with approximately 280 surface parking spaces partially covered with solar power generation capability. The new courthouse would consolidate most family law, probate, and civil operations into one central location to enhance the public’s access to justice, optimize the use of court facilities and relieve the current space shortfall, while replacing inadequate and obsolete buildings in Monterey County;
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2023 the Judicial Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, approved the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project, and filed a Notice of Determination (NOD); WHEREAS, the City owns the real property identified for acquisition in the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project which is comprised of approximately 5.0 acres, located at the southwest corner of Divarty Street and Second Avenue, a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 031-151.013 (“Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the certified Final Environmental Impact Report found that the Project’s property has a General Plan designation as Regional Commercial and that the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project is consistent with that designation, consistent with the General Plan as a whole, and consistent with the Main Gate Specific Plan (Draft EIR, pp.
3.4-3 and 4.1-15); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby finds:
1. That the above recitals are true and correct, and hereby incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full;
2. That the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project and the transfer of the Project Site land to the State of California Judicial Council would not be subject to the Surplus Lands Act and is considered “exempt” pursuant to Government Code §§ 54221(f)(1)(D) and 54222.3; and
Packet Page 310
3. That the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project and the transfer of the Project Site land to the State of California is consistent with the General Plan designation of Regional Commercial which allows both service uses and public facilities; and
4. That the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project and the transfer of the Project Site Land to the State of California for use as a new courthouse is also consistent with the Main Gate Specific Plan as the City of Seaside Zoning Administrator has determined that new Fort Ord Courthouse is of the same general character of those uses listed in the matrix for the specific projects in the Main Gate Specific Plan zone in particular the Public Safety Facility use; and
5. That the City Council has considered the environmental effects of the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project and the Final EIR prepared by the Judicial Council and reached its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the transfer of land for the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project; and
6. That there has been no change to the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project or substantial changes in circumstances or new information that would warrant subsequent or supplemental environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA; and
7. The City hereby adopts the CEQA Findings approved by the Judicial Council on August 21, 2023 and hereby adopts the State of Overriding Considerations approved by the Judicial Council on August 21, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute the Property Acquisition Agreement with the State of California, in a form substantially similar to the document attached hereto, as finally approved as to form by the City Attorney and to take all future actions consistent with that agreement, including but not limited to execution of a Quitclaim Deed, execution of an Infrastructure Agreement, transfer of the property from the Successor Agency to the City in accordance with the Long Range Management Plan, and any other action reasonably necessary to implement the project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside, State of California, on the ___ day of September, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS
APPROVED:
_______________________________
Ian N. Oglesby, Mayor
Packet Page 311
ATTEST:
______________________________
Dominique L. Davis, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Sheri L. Damon, City Attorney
Packet Page 312
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 1 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
Project: New Fort Ord Courthouse
Fac. No.: 27-J1
Location: Corner of Divarty Street
and Second Avenue,
City of Seaside, California
APN: Portion of 031-151-013
County: Monterey
PROPERTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
This Property Acquisition Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ______________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF SEASIDE, as successor to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seaside (“Grantor”), and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of the Judicial Council of California (“Grantee”). Grantor and Grantee may hereafter be individually referred to as a “Party” and collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Grantor owns certain real property comprised of approximately 5.0 acres, located in the State of California, County of Monterey, City of Seaside, at the southwest corner of Divarty Street and Second Avenue, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Property”), which is a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 031-151-013.
B. Grantee intends to design and construct, for the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey (“Court”), a three-story courthouse of approximately 83,000 square feet, commonly referred to as the New Fort Ord Courthouse (“Courthouse Project”), generally consisting as of the Effective Date of seven multi-purpose courtrooms, chambers, central holding, jury assembly, and self-help and support areas along with approximately 280 surface parking spaces partially covered with solar power generation capability.
C. Grantee is authorized to acquire the Property pursuant to Government Code sections 15853 and 70371.7, and the State Public Works Board (“SPWB”) authorized the site selection of the Property on June 23, 2022.
D. The Parties desire Grantor to convey to Grantee fee title to the Property for the site of the Courthouse Project, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
Packet Page 313
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 2 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
AGREEMENT
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing provisions of the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
2. Transaction Summary; Quitclaim Deed. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor agrees to convey to Grantee, and Grantee agrees to acquire from Grantor, fee title interest in the Property by recordation of the Quitclaim Deed for the Property (“Quitclaim Deed”) in substantially the same form as Exhibit “B,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
3. Consideration; No Cost Acquisition. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge and agree that Grantor’s conveyance and Grantee’s acquisition of the Property is at no cost to Grantee, and that consideration for this Agreement is the Parties’ full and timely compliance with the terms, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein. The Parties agree that the covenants and other consideration that each Party will convey to the other Party under this Agreement is of fair value for the Property, covenants, and other consideration that each Party will receive from the other Party therefor; neither Party will be obligated to pay or provide to the other Party any additional consideration of any kind beyond what is specifically provided for in this Agreement.
4. Title and Establishment of Escrow.
4.1. Title to the Property shall pass immediately upon the Close of Escrow (defined below) free and clear of all liens, leases, reservations, encumbrances, assessments, easements of record or otherwise, and of taxes, except for any exceptions identified in the preliminary report, dated December 2, 2021, prepared by Stewart Title (“Title Report”) which Grantee has specifically approved in writing.
4.2. Within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date, Grantee shall open escrow with Stewart Title, at 525 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91203 (“Escrow Holder”), to consummate the conveyance and acquisition of the Property pursuant to this Agreement.
4.3. Grantor shall open the escrow by delivering a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement to the Escrow Holder. In addition, the Parties agree to execute, deliver, and be bound by any reasonable or customary supplemental escrow instructions of the Escrow Holder, or other instruments as may reasonably be required by the Escrow Holder, in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Any such supplemental instructions shall not amend or supersede any portion of this Agreement. If there is any inconsistency between such supplemental instructions and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control.
Packet Page 314
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 3 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
5. Escrow and Recording Fees.
5.1. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantee shall deposit with the Escrow Holder sufficient funds to pay and be responsible for all escrow fees owed to the Escrow Holder for the conveyance and acquisition of the Property; provided, however, that Grantee is exempt from the payment of documentary transfer taxes and recording fees as a governmental entity, and shall not be obligated to pay said costs prior to receiving an acceptable title insurance policy issued to Grantee and an itemized invoice of said costs.
5.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor and Grantee shall each be responsible to pay all costs for services specifically requested for their individual benefit.
In addition, Grantee shall pay any costs related to premiums and endorsements with respect to the issuance of any title insurance for the Property desired by Grantee.
6. Close of Escrow. Escrow shall be scheduled to close (“Close of Escrow”) on or before sixty (60) days from the SPWB’s authorization of Grantee’s acquisition of the Property at a duly noticed public meeting, subject to any reasonable extension(s) mutually agreed upon by the Parties in writing. Upon the Close of Escrow, the Escrow Holder shall record the Quitclaim Deed in the Official Records of the County of Monterey.
7. Grantor’s Conditions Precedent. Grantor’s obligation to perform under this Agreement and the Close of Escrow shall be subject to and contingent upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions precedent prior to the Close of Escrow:
7.1. Grantee’s Deposit of Required Items. The timely deposit by Grantee with the Escrow Holder of all documents and funds required to be deposited by Grantee under this Agreement.
7.2. Grantee’s Performance of Obligations. Performance by Grantee of all obligations, covenants, and agreements on Grantee’s part to be performed under this Agreement within the time provided in this Agreement for such performance.
7.3. Accuracy of Grantee’s Representations and Warranties. As of the Close of Escrow, all of Grantee’s representations and warranties set forth herein shall be true and accurate with the same force and effect as if remade by Grantee in a separate certificate at the Close of Escrow.
8. Grantee’s Conditions Precedent. Grantee’s obligation to perform under this Agreement and the Close of Escrow shall be subject to and contingent upon satisfaction of each of the following conditions precedent prior to the Close of Escrow, which conditions are for the sole benefit of Grantee and may only be waived or deemed satisfied in writing at Grantee’s election and in Grantee’s sole discretion:
Packet Page 315
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 4 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
8.1. Grantor’s Deposit of Required Items. The timely deposit by Grantor with the Escrow Holder of all funds and documents required to be deposited by Grantor under this Agreement.
8.2. Grantor’s Performance of Obligations. Performance by Grantor of all obligations, covenants, and agreements on Grantor’s part to be performed under this Agreement within the time provided in this Agreement for such performance.
8.3. No Grantor Breach. No existence of any breach or default by Grantor of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
8.4. SPWB Authorization. The SPWB’s authorization of Grantee’s acquisition of the Property at a duly noticed public meeting, and the SPWB’s acceptance of the conveyance by executing the Certificate of Acceptance to the Quitclaim Deed or in such form and content as then may be required by the SPWB and applicable law.
8.5. ALTA/ACSM Survey. Grantee shall have the right to obtain, at its sole cost and expense, a certified survey of the Property prepared by a licensed land surveyor in accordance with the 1999 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys, as adopted by the American Land Title Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors.
8.6. Title Insurance Policy. On the date of the Close of Escrow, Escrow Holder shall be irrevocably and unconditionally committed to issue to Grantee a CLTA Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance – Extended Coverage with liability coverage in the amount of the value of the Property, and showing fee title to the Property vested in Grantee free and clear of all liens, leases, taxes, assessments, reservations, easements of record or otherwise, and encumbrances, except for any Title Report exceptions which Grantee has specifically approved in writing.
8.7. Due Diligence Contingency. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to deliver to Grantor written notice approving of the condition of the Property (“Due Diligence Contingency Notice”). If Grantee does not so deliver the Due Diligence Contingency Notice on or prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantee shall be deemed to have disapproved of the condition of the Property, and Grantee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to terminate this Agreement.
8.8. Accuracy of Grantor’s Representations and Warranties. As of the Close of Escrow, all of Grantor’s representations and warranties set forth herein shall be true and accurate with the same force and effect as if remade by Grantor in a separate certificate at the Close of Escrow.
Packet Page 316
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 5 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
9. Grantor’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to any express agreements of Grantor contained herein, the following constitutes representations and warranties of Grantor to Grantee, which conditions are for the sole benefit of Grantee and may only be waived or deemed satisfied in writing at Grantee’s election and in Grantee’s sole discretion:
9.1. Representations Regarding Grantor’s Authority.
9.1.1. Grantor has full right, power, and legal authority to enter into this Agreement; to transfer and convey the Property to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein; and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.
9.1.2. The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein on behalf of Grantor have the legal power, right, and actual authority to bind Grantor to the terms and conditions hereof and thereof.
9.1.3. This Agreement and all other instruments, documents, and agreements required to be executed and delivered by Grantor in connection with this Agreement are and shall be duly authorized, executed, and delivered by Grantor and shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against Grantor in accordance with their terms and do not, and as of the Close of Escrow will not, violate any provisions of any agreement, law, rule, regulation, or judicial order to which Grantor or the Property is subject.
9.2. Grantor’s Warranties and Representations Pertaining to Real Estate and Legal Matters. To the best of Grantor’s knowledge:
9.2.1. There is no suit, action, arbitration, legal, administrative, or other proceeding or inquiry pending against the Property or pending against Grantor which could affect Grantor’s title to the Property, affect the value of the Property, or subject an owner of the Property to liability.
9.2.2. Grantor has not entered into any other contracts for the sale or conveyance of the Property with any third parties, nor do there exist any rights of first refusal, reversions, or options to purchase or acquire the Property or any portion of the Property with any third parties. Grantor is not party to nor subject or bound by any agreement, contract, or lease of any kind with any third parties relating to the Property which would impose an obligation on Grantee or otherwise affect marketability of title to the Property.
9.2.3. As of the Close of Escrow, there shall be no unrecorded leases, licenses, or other agreements entered into by Grantor which would grant any third party or Packet Page 317
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 6 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
entity the right to use or occupy any portion of the Property, including any improvements thereon, and no improvements on the Property that encroach upon the property of a third party.
9.2.4. There are no attachments, execution proceedings, or assignments for the benefit of creditors, insolvency, bankruptcy, reorganization, or other proceedings pending against GRANTOR.
9.2.5. There are no and have been no actual or pending public improvements which will result in the creation of any liens upon the Property, including public assessments or mechanics liens and GRANTOR agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless GRANTEE from and against any claims, liabilities, losses, costs, damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees arising from any liens, encumbrances, or assessments that have been, or may be, imposed upon the Property as a consequence of actual or impending public improvements as of the Close of Escrow, including any obligations to pay a fee or assessment for infrastructure to the extent such liability survives or continues after the Close of Escrow, and GRANTEE agrees to cooperate with GRANTOR, at GRANTOR’s costs and to the extent permitted by law, with respect to GRANTOR’s efforts to remove any such liens, fees, assessments, or encumbrances.
9.2.6. There are no and have been no uncured notices from any governmental agency notifying Grantor of any violations of law, ordinance, rule, or regulation occurring on the Property.
9.3. Grantor’s Warranties, Representations, and Covenants Regarding Operation of the Property Through the Close of Escrow.
9.3.1. Grantor hereby agrees that Grantor will not, after the Effective Date of this Agreement, enter into new leases or any other obligations or agreements affecting the Property without the prior written consent of Grantee, which consent Grantee may withhold or grant in its sole discretion.
9.3.2. Grantor will not subject the Property to any additional liens, encumbrances, covenants, conditions, easements, rights of way, or similar matters after the Effective Date of this Agreement that will not be eliminated prior to the Close of Escrow.
9.3.3. Grantor shall promptly notify Grantee of any event or circumstance that makes any representation or warranty of Grantor under this Agreement untrue or misleading, or of any covenant of Grantor under this Agreement incapable or less likely of being performed. It is understood that Grantor’s obligation to provide notice to Grantee shall in no way relieve Grantor of any liability for a breach by Grantor of any of its representations, warranties, or covenants under this Agreement.
Packet Page 318
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 7 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
9.4. Grantor’s Representations Pertaining to Additional Documents. There are no leases, subleases, or tenancies with any third parties in effect pertaining to the Property.
9.5. Grantor’s General Representation.
9.5.1. No representation, warranty, or statement of Grantor in this Agreement or in any document, certificate, or schedule furnished or to be furnished to Grantee pursuant hereto contains or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omits or will omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements or facts contained therein not misleading.
9.5.2. Grantor’s representations and warranties made in this Agreement shall be continuing and shall be true and correct as of the date of the Close of Escrow with the same force and effect as if remade by Grantor in a separate certificate at that time. The truth and accuracy of Grantor’s representations and warranties made herein shall constitute a condition for the benefit of Grantee to the Close of Escrow (as elsewhere provided herein) and shall not merge into the Close of Escrow or the recordation of the Quitclaim Deed in the Official Records, and shall survive the Close of Escrow.
10. Grantee’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to any express agreements of Grantee contained herein, the following constitutes representations and warranties of Grantee to Grantor:
10.1. Representations Regarding Grantee’s Authority.
10.1.1. Grantee has full power, right, and legal authority to enter into this Agreement; to acquire and accept the Property from Grantor pursuant to this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein; and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.
10.1.2. The individuals executing this Agreement and the instruments referenced herein on behalf of Grantee have the legal power, right, and actual authority to bind Grantee to the terms and conditions hereof and thereof.
10.1.3. This Agreement and all other instruments, documents, and agreements required to be executed and delivered by Grantee in connection with this Agreement are and shall be duly authorized, executed, and delivered by Grantee and shall be valid, legally binding obligations of and enforceable against Grantee in accordance with their terms and do not, and as of the Close of Escrow will not, violate any provisions of any agreement, law, rule, regulation, or judicial order to which Grantee is subject.
Packet Page 319
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 8 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
10.2. Grantee’s General Representation.
10.2.1. No representation, warranty, or statement of Grantee in this Agreement or in any document, certificate, or schedule furnished or to be furnished to Grantor pursuant hereto contains or will contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omits or will omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements or facts contained therein not misleading.
10.2.2. Grantee’s representations and warranties made in this Agreement shall be continuing and shall be true and correct as of the date of the Close of Escrow with the same force and effect as if remade by Grantee in a separate certificate at that time. The truth and accuracy of Grantee’s representations and warranties made herein shall constitute a condition for the benefit of Grantor to the Close of Escrow (as elsewhere provided herein) and shall not merge into the Close of Escrow or the recordation of the Quitclaim Deed in the Official Records, and shall survive the Close of Escrow.
11. Grantor’s Obligations. Grantor shall comply with the following requirements prior to the Close of Escrow; however, to the extent that the deadline for Grantor to complete an obligation expressly extends beyond the Close of Escrow, Grantor covenants to perform and complete the obligation within the time period set forth herein notwithstanding the Close of Escrow:
11.1. No Grants or Conveyances. Grantor shall not grant, convey, or enter into any easement, lease, license, agreement, lien, encumbrance, or any other legal or beneficial interest in or to the Property, without the prior written consent of Grantee in Grantee’s sole discretion.
11.2. No Violation of Laws. After execution of this Agreement by Grantor and up to the Close of Escrow, Grantor shall not violate, nor allow the violation of, any law, ordinance, rule, or regulation affecting the Property.
11.3. Preservation of Easements and Other Rights. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantor shall do, or cause to be done, all things within its reasonable control to preserve intact and unimpaired any and all rights of way, easements, grants, appurtenances, privileges, and licenses in favor or consisting of any portion of the Property.
11.4. Taxes and Assessments. Grantor shall pay, if and when the same are due, all payments on any encumbrances or assessments presently affecting the Property and any and all taxes, assessments, and levies in respect of the Property through the Close of Escrow.
11.5. Zoning. Prior to the Close of Escrow, Grantor shall not take any action, or fail to take any action, that would result in any change, alteration, modification, addition Packet Page 320
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 9 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
to, or termination of any of the presently existing general plan or zoning designation of the Property, without Grantee’s prior written approval, and Grantor shall immediately provide Grantee with a copy of any written materials received by Grantor evidencing or relating to any proposal or attempt to effect any such change, alteration, modification, addition to, or termination other than those sought by Grantee.
11.6. No Modification to Condition of Property. Grantor shall (i) not alter the physical condition of the Property; (ii) maintain the Property in substantially the same condition as that which existed as of the date that Grantee executed this Agreement; and (iii) deliver possession of the Property to Grantee at the Close of Escrow in substantially the same condition that existed as of the date that Grantee executed this Agreement except for any remediation that Grantor agrees to do in response to any due diligence conducted by the Parties, for any performance of the Infrastructure Improvements (defined below), or as otherwise provided for in this Agreement.
11.7. Notification to Grantee. Grantor shall promptly notify Grantee of any event or circumstance that could or would render any representation or warranty of Grantor under this Agreement untrue or misleading, or of any covenant of Grantor under this Agreement incapable or less likely of being performed; provided, however, that Grantor’s foregoing obligation to provide notice to Grantee shall in no way relieve Grantor of any liability for a breach by Grantor of any of its representations, warranties, or covenants under this Agreement.
11.8. No Recordation of CCRs. Grantor shall not record any covenants, conditions, or restrictions against the Property including, without limitation, any design restrictions with respect to the development of the Property.
11.9. No Assessment Districts or Special Tax Districts. Grantor shall not assist with the formation, vote for, or agree to any assessment districts or special tax districts which results in a special tax or assessment upon the Property.
11.10. Title Evidence. Notwithstanding that any title evidence which may be desired by Grantee will be procured by Grantee, Grantor will cooperate with Grantee and its authorized agents in connection therewith, and will permit examination and inspection of any deeds, abstracts, affidavits of title, judgments in condemnation proceedings, or other documents relating to the title of the Property that Grantor may have available. It is understood that Grantor will not be obligated to pay for any expense incurred in connection with any title matters or survey of the Property.
11.11. Other Documents. As required and only if applicable, Grantor shall prepare or cause to be prepared the following documents:
Packet Page 321
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 10 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
11.11.1. One (1) Affidavit of Nonforeign Status (FIRPTA Affidavit) for the Property;
11.11.2. One (1) Real Estate Withholding Certificate (Form 593-C) for the Property;
11.11.3. One (1) Preliminary Change of Ownership Report (PCOR) for the Property; and
11.11.4. Such other documents as are deemed reasonably necessary by the Parties or Escrow Holder in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.
11.12. Additional Terms. Grantor shall perform and comply with the requirements of all Additional Terms applicable to Grantor under this Agreement.
12. Access to Property. From the Effective Date through the Close of Escrow, Grantor hereby consents to providing Grantee with reasonable access to the Property upon prior notice and to permitting Grantee to undertake, without limitation and at Grantee’s sole expense: (i) inspections of the Property; (ii) reviews of the physical condition of the Property including, but not limited to, inspection and examination of soils, environmental factors, hazardous substances, biological resources, archaeological information, and water resources, if any, relating to the Property; and (iii) reviews and investigations of the effect of zoning, maps, permits, reports, engineering data, regulations, ordinances, and laws affecting the Property.
13. Additional Terms of Transaction. As part of the Parties’ consideration for this Agreement, the Parties agree to satisfy and comply with the following additional terms (“Additional Terms”):
13.1. Property Infrastructure Improvements.
13.1.1. Grantor shall perform, and Grantee shall reimburse the reasonable costs actually incurred by Grantor for, certain on-site, off-site, and other infrastructure improvements needed for the Property to be ‘shovel-ready’ for the Courthouse Project’s commencement, generally consisting without limitation of the following (“Infrastructure Improvements”):
13.1.1.1. Undergrounding of all existing overhead utility lines along the Divarty Street property frontage and preparation of the Property for related utility connections;
Packet Page 322
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 11 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
13.1.1.2. Installation of all needed sewer system(s) from Marina Coast Water District to the Property;
13.1.1.3. Installation of all needed water system(s) from Marina Coast Water District to the Property including, without limitation, potable, domestic, fire, and irrigation purposes;
13.1.1.4. Water allocation for the Property and installation of related improvements for the Property;
13.1.1.5. Installation of extension of recycled water lines from Second Avenue distribution from Marina Coast Water District to the Property for purposes of future connections upon availability of recycled water;
13.1.1.6. Coordination with the City of Marina for and
construction of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for the Courthouse Project, as applicable.
13.1.2. The performance, completion, payment, and other terms for the Infrastructure Improvements shall be pursuant to the Infrastructure Improvements Agreement, to be executed by the Parties concurrently with this Agreement, in substantially the same form as Exhibit “C,” attached hereto and made a part hereof.
13.2. SR-1 View Corridor Environmental Mitigation.
13.2.1. Grantee acknowledges that the Property is located near the State Route-1 View Corridor (“SR-1 View Corridor”) and the Courthouse Project would represent a change in the visual character of the Property upon its completion.
Consequently, in accordance with certain environmental mitigation measures for the Courthouse Project (EIR MM 4.1-2, 4.1-4), Grantee shall make a one-time monetary contribution to Grantor (“Corridor Preservation Contribution”) exclusively for Grantor’s development and maintenance of a park and recreation area located to the west of, and immediately adjacent to, the Property in order to retain the existing mature trees for the protection of the SR-1 View Corridor’s visual character (“Grantor Corridor Preservation Work”).
13.2.2. Grantee’s Corridor Preservation Contribution shall be in the total amount of three hundred thousand Dollars ($300,000) and shall be paid by Grantee to Grantor at or within sixty (60) days of the Close of Escrow.
13.2.3. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Grantor Corridor Preservation Work provides a mutual benefit to the Parties and their respective properties including the Property that is the subject of this Agreement. Except for Grantee’s Corridor Preservation Contribution, and unless and until otherwise agreed to in writing by the Packet Page 323
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 12 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
Parties, Grantee shall not have any on-going or future responsibility or liability with respect to the Grantor Corridor Preservation Work or Grantor’s expenditure of Grantee’s Corridor Preservation Contribution.
13.3. Retaining Wall and Trail Path.
13.3.1. Due to the site’s topography, Grantee’s performance of the Courthouse Project shall include the construction of required retaining walls along both the southern boundary as well as portions of the eastern and western boundaries of the Property (“Retaining Wall”).
13.3.2. As part of and upon the Retaining Wall’s completion, Grantee shall also perform preliminary rough grading of an approximately sixteen (16) foot-wide pedestrian/bicycle path, without additional or other improvement thereto by Grantee (“Path Grading”), along and adjacent to the south side of the Retaining Wall for Grantor’s incorporation into the future FORTAG Regional Trail (“Grantor Regional Trail”).
13.3.3. Other than the preliminary Path Grading to be performed by Grantee as described herein, the Parties acknowledge and agree that Grantor’s construction, improvement, maintenance, repair, and subsequent operation/use of said Regional Trail is otherwise planned separately from the Courthouse Project and without any Grantee responsibility, obligation, or liability therefor.
13.3.4. The Parties agree to mutually coordinate in good faith prior to and following the Close of Escrow to reasonably agree on the design, performance, and all applicable entitlements (e.g., granting of permanent easement rights for Retaining Wall foundations, etc.) for the Retaining Wall and Path Grading.
13.4. Excess Soil Relocation. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Grantor shall have a one-time right, but is not obligated, to request Grantee to provide Grantor, at no cost, with the excess soil that Grantee will not utilize and will remove from the Property in Grantee’s performance of the Courthouse Project (“Excess Soil”). Except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties, Grantee will provide the Excess Soil, if any and if at all, in a one-time relocation and delivery of the Excess Soil to Grantor’s Main Gate property adjacent to the Property. If Grantor desires to so elect to be provided with the Excess Soil, if any, Grantor shall provide written notice to Grantee thereof (“Excess Soil Relocation Notice”) within one hundred eighty (180) days following the Close of Escrow, after which time Grantor shall be deemed to have declined its right to receive the Excess Soil hereunder. If issued to Grantee, the Excess Soil Relocation Notice shall include proposed logistical details for Grantee’s delivery of the Excess Soil (e.g., precise delivery location, etc.), which details shall be further coordinated and communicated between the Parties in good faith.
Packet Page 324
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 13 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
13.5. Temporary Construction Access. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee temporary construction access and use (“Temporary Construction Access”) over, on, under, and through Grantor-owned land adjacent to and nearby the Property that is reasonably necessary for Grantee’s performance, staging, and completion of the Courthouse Project on the Property and of all other work to be performed by Grantee on said land as required by this Agreement (e.g., Retaining Wall, Path Grading, etc.).
13.6. Courthouse Project Signage. Grantor acknowledges and agrees that Grantee’s performance of the Courthouse Project may, in Grantee’s discretion, include the installation and placement of signage on the Property indicating the pending construction and completion of the Courthouse Project at the Property.
14. Loss, Destruction, and Condemnation. The Parties agree that the following provisions shall govern the risk of loss, destruction, and condemnation of the Property:
14.1. If, before Grantor transfers legal title to or possession of the Property, all or a material part of the Property is destroyed without fault of Grantee, or is taken by eminent domain by any governmental entity, Grantee shall be entitled to terminate its obligations under this Agreement by written notice to Grantor and Grantor shall not have the right to enforce this Agreement against Grantee. If Grantee does not elect to terminate this Agreement, then Grantee shall, as applicable, either: (i) proceed to close as provided herein; or (ii) proceed to close as provided herein with an assignment as applicable by Grantor of all of the Grantor’s applicable rights, title, and interest in and to all such eminent domain awards and proceeds subject to any rights of Grantee therein. Grantor will promptly notify Grantee in writing of any eminent domain proceedings affecting the Property.
14.2. If, after Grantor transfers legal title of the Property to Grantee at the Close of Escrow, all or any part of the Property is destroyed without fault of Grantor, or is taken by eminent domain by any governmental entity, Grantee is not relieved from Grantee’s obligations under this Agreement.
15. Grantor’s Right of First Refusal.
15.1. Right of First Refusal. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Grantor shall have a right of first refusal in accordance herewith to purchase from Grantee the Property improved with the Courthouse Project in the event of either of the following (“Right of First Refusal”): (i) Grantee’s commencement of the Courthouse Project’s construction has not occurred by or before December 31, 2035 (“Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline”); or (ii) Grantee, in its sole and absolute discretion and in collaboration with the Court, and having obtained all required approvals including, without limitation and as applicable, receiving legislative authority, offers the Property for sale after the Close of Escrow (“Future Courthouse Project Disposition”).
Packet Page 325
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 14 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
15.2. ROFR Election Notices.
15.2.1. If, following the Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline, Grantee has not commenced or is not actively engaged in commencing, construction of the Courthouse Project, Grantor may notify Grantee in writing of Grantor’s election to exercise Grantor’s Right of First Refusal pursuant to this Agreement (“ROFR CommencementElection Notice”). Upon Grantee’s receipt of the ROFR Commencement-Election Notice, the Parties shall promptly meet and confer in good faith regarding the Courthouse Project’s status and delay in commencement to determine whether to extend the Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline in writing or to effectuate Grantor’s Right of First Refusal in accordance herewith. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Courthouse Project’s commencement of construction has not occurred by or before the Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline solely as a result of the State’s failure to timely approve and adopt a State budget authorizing and appropriating funds therefor during the fiscal year in which the Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline falls, then the Courthouse Project Commencement Deadline shall be tolled for a period equal to the State’s delay in adopting said State budget plus a reasonable amount of time for Grantee to commence construction.
15.2.2. If Grantee proceeds with the Future Courthouse Project Disposition, Grantee shall provide Grantor with one hundred eighty (180) days’ written notice thereof (“Courthouse Project Disposition Notice”) by which Grantor must notify Grantee in writing of whether Grantor will elect to exercise Grantor’s Right of First Refusal (“ROFR Disposition-Election Notice”). Grantor’s failure to timely and properly issue the ROFR Disposition-Election Notice will be deemed to be Grantor’s election not to exercise Grantor’s Right of First Refusal which will thereafter be of no force or effect.
15.3. Purchase Price. Within ninety (90) days of either Grantor’s ROFR Commencement-Election Notice or Grantee’s Courthouse Project Disposition Notice, if at all, the Parties shall promptly meet and confer in good faith to reasonably determine the applicable purchase price of Grantee’s Right of First Refusal as needed (“ROFR Purchase Price”). The ROFR Purchase Price shall be based on the then-current fair market value of the Property as improved with the Courthouse Project less the then-current fair market value of only the Property’s land without the Courthouse Project’s improvements.
15.4. Bond Subordination. Grantee will be financing the construction of the Courthouse Project through the issuance of SPWB lease revenue bonds (“Bonds”), which will be in part secured by site and facility leases between the Judicial Council of California and SPWB pertaining to the Property (“Bond Documents”). Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything to the contrary, Grantor’s Right of First Refusal shall at all times be subject and subordinate to all Bond Documents, along with any and all amendments, extensions, renewals, modifications, refinances, and replacements of and to the Bond Documents, for not less than the life of the Bonds. The Parties acknowledge and agree that Grantor’s Right of First Refusal in accordance herewith will not otherwise impact or impair Packet Page 326
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 15 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
Grantee’s ownership, quiet enjoyment, and beneficial use of the Courthouse Project in any way.
15.5. ROFR Expiration. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties, Grantor’s Right of First Refusal shall expire and be of no force or effect ninety-nine (99) years after the Quitclaim Deed is recorded in the Official Records.
16. Notices. Any notice, tender, delivery, or other communication required pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing and, to be deemed to be properly given, shall be either:
(i) personally delivered; (ii) mailed by depositing such notice in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid; or (iii) sent by a reputable overnight delivery service, addressed as follows or to such other place as each Party hereto may designate by subsequent written notice to the other Party:
If to Grantor:
City of Seaside
Attn: City Manager
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Voice: 831-899-6701
E-Mail: [email protected]
With an Email Copy to:
[email protected]
If to Grantee:
Judicial Council of California
Facilities Services
Attn: Manager, Real Estate
2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95833
Voice: 916-263-7999
Packet Page 327
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 16 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
With a copy to:
Judicial Council of California
Legal Services
Attn: Supervising Attorney, Real Estate Unit
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
17. General Terms.
17.1. Assignment. Each Party shall have the right to assign its interest under this Agreement at any time prior to the Close of Escrow with the express, prior written consent of the other Party; provided, however, that any valid assignment shall not relieve the Party from the performance of its duties and obligations, or of its representations and warranties, hereunder. Each Party shall give written notice of any approved assignment to the Escrow Holder at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of assignment.
17.2. Calculation of Time. Under this Agreement, when the day upon which performance would otherwise be required or permitted is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, then the time for performance shall be extended to the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. The term “holiday” shall mean all and only those State holidays specified in section 6700 of the California Government Code.
17.3. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element.
17.4. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be considered a waiver of any other provision or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by either Party of any remedy provided in this Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that Party of any other remedy provided in this Agreement or at law or in equity.
17.5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the attached exhibits shall constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties hereto regarding the conveyance and acquisition of the Property, and all prior agreements, understandings, representations, or negotiations, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded, terminated, and canceled in their entirety and are of no further force or effect.
17.6. Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by the Parties.
17.7. Applicable Law. The Parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of California. The Parties hereto expressly Packet Page 328
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 17 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
agree that this Agreement shall in all respects be governed and enforced by the laws of the State of California and any claim to enforce the provisions hereof shall be brought in the Superior Court of California.
17.8. Severability. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as to require the commission of any act contrary to law and, wherever there is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present statute, law, ordinance, or regulation as to which the Parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail, but the affected provisions of this Agreement shall be limited only to the extent necessary to bring them within the requirements of such law. It is hereby stipulated and declared to be the intention of the Parties that each would have executed all other terms, provisions, covenants, and restrictions set forth in this Agreement without including any such provisions in conflict with law that may be hereafter declared invalid, void, or unenforceable.
17.9. Captions, Number, and Gender. The captions appearing at the commencement of the sections, paragraphs, and subparagraphs hereof are descriptive only and for convenience in reference. Should there be any conflict between any such caption and the section, paragraph, or subparagraph at the head of which it appears, the section, paragraph, or subparagraph and not the caption shall control and govern the construction of this Agreement. In this Agreement, the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others whenever the context so requires.
17.10. Survival. All terms and conditions in this Agreement, which represent continuing obligations and duties of the Parties, that have not been satisfied prior to Close of Escrow shall survive Close of Escrow and transfer of title to Grantee and shall continue to be binding on the respective obligated Party in accordance with their terms. All representations and warranties and statements respectively made by the Parties contained herein or made in writing pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be, and shall remain, true and correct as of the Close of Escrow, shall be deemed to be material, and, together with all conditions, covenants, and indemnities made by the respective Parties contained herein or made in writing pursuant to this Agreement (except as otherwise expressly limited or expanded by the terms of this Agreement), shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement and the Close of Escrow, or, to the extent the context requires, beyond any termination of this Agreement.
17.11. Further Action. Each Party hereto shall, before the Close of Escrow, duly execute and deliver such papers, documents, and instruments and perform all acts reasonably necessary or proper to carry out and effectuate the terms of this Agreement.
17.12. Electronic Signatures. Electronic signatures shall not be accepted unless prior agreement is obtained in writing by both Parties. If agreed by the Parties that electronic or facsimile signatures are acceptable, they will be treated as original signatures; Packet Page 329
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 18 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
however, in no instance shall electronic or facsimile signatures be accepted on any document to be recorded in the Official Records and such documents must bear original signatures.
17.13. Counterparts. This Agreement and the attached exhibits may be executed in counterparts (including .PDF copies), each of which shall be deemed an original as against the Party signing such counterpart, and which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
18. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference.
18.1. Exhibit “A”: Legal Description of Property
18.2. Exhibit “B”: Form of Quitclaim Deed with Certificate of Acceptance
18.3. Exhibit “C”: Form of Infrastructure Improvement Agreement [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S)]
Packet Page 330
Property Acquisition Agreement Page 19 of 19
Court Facility No. 27-J1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Property Acquisition Agreement on the dates indicated below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Judicial Council of California,
Legal Services
By: _______________________
Name: Kristin Kerr
Title: Supervising Attorney
Date: _______________________
GRANTOR:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
By: ______________________________
Name: Millicent Tidwell
Title: Acting Administrative Director
Date: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: _______________________
Name: Sheri L. Damon
Title: City Attorney
Date: _______________________
GRANTEE:
CITY OF SEASIDE
By: ______________________________
Name: Jaime N. Fontes
Title: City Manager
Date: ______________________________
Packet Page 331
Property Acquisition Agreement A-1
Court Facility No. 27-J1 Description of Property
EXHIBIT “A”
TO PROPERTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
TO BE INSERTED PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
Packet Page 332
Property Acquisition Agreement B-1
Court Facility No. 27-J1 Form of Quitclaim Deed
EXHIBIT “B”
TO PROPERTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
QUITCLAIM DEED AND CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
The Quitclaim Deed shall be substantially similar to the attached form.
Packet Page 333
Quitclaim Deed 1
Court Facility No. 27-J1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND,
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
Facilities Services
2860 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95833
Attention: Manager, Real Estate
OFFICIAL STATE BUSINESS – EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383 AND DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION 11922.
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR
RECORDER’S USE
QUITCLAIM DEED Agency: Judicial Council of California
Property: Fort Ord Courthouse, No. 27-J1
APN: Portion of 031-151-013; County of Monterey
For valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF SEASIDE (“Grantor”) does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA (“Grantee”) all of Grantor’s right, title, and interest in and to the real property (“Property”) in the City of Seaside, County of Monterey, State of California, described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
Subject to all covenants, restrictions, reservations, easements, rights, and rights-of-way of record, if any.
Grantor shall have a one-time right of first refusal to purchase the Property from Grantee in accordance with the terms of that certain Property Acquisition Agreement between Grantor and Grantee, dated Insert Date, 20___, in the event that the Judicial Council of California, on behalf of Grantee, either (i) fails to commence construction of the Courthouse Project on the Property by or before December 31, 2035, or (ii) offers the Property for sale after this Quitclaim Deed’s recordation in the Official Records, all as more fully set forth in said Property Acquisition Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor’s said right of first refusal shall expire and be of no force or effect ninety-nine (99) years after this Quitclaim Deed’s recordation in the Official Records, and shall not otherwise impact or impair Grantee’s ownership, quiet enjoyment, and beneficial use of the Property in any way. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Packet Page 334
Quitclaim Deed 2
Court Facility No. 27-J1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: _______________________
Name: Sheri Damon
Title: Attorney
Date: _______________________
Grantor:
CITY OF SEASIDE
By: ___________________________
Name: Insert
Title: Insert
Date: ___________________________
FORM: NOT FOR EXECUTION
Packet Page 335
Quitclaim Deed 3
Court Facility No. 27-J1
EXHIBIT “A”
TO QUITCLAIM DEED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
TO BE INSERTED PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
Packet Page 336
Quitclaim Deed 4
Court Facility No. 27-J1
CITY OF SEASIDE
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF __________________________
On ____________________ before me, __________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ________________________
(Seal)
FORM: NOT FOR
EXECUTION
Packet Page 337
Agency: Judicial Council of California DGS Parcel No.:
Project Name: New Fort Ord Courthouse Assessor Parcel No: Portion of 031-151-013 Court Facility No.: 27-J1 County: Monterey
Quitclaim Deed –Certificate of Acceptance 5
Court Facility No. 27-J1
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
This is to certify that, pursuant to sections 15853, 27281 and 70301 et seq. of the California Government Code, the interest in real property conveyed by the Quitclaim Deed dated ____________________, from the CITY OF SEASIDE to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of the Judicial Council, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the State Public Works Board pursuant to the approval action by said Board and duly adopted on _______________________. The Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.
Accepted
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE PUBLIC WORKS BOARD
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Koreen H. van Ravenhorst
Deputy Director
Consent
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Millicent Tidwell
Acting Administrative Director
Approved as to form:
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
LEGAL SERVICES
By: ___________________________________ Dated: __________________ Kristin Kerr
Supervising Attorney, Real Estate Unit
FORM: NOT FOR EXECUTION
Packet Page 338
Property Acquisition Agreement C-1
Court Facility No. 27-J1 Form of Infrastructure Improvements Agreement EXHIBIT “C”
TO PROPERTY ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
The Infrastructure Improvements Agreement shall be substantially similar to the attached form.
Packet Page 339
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 1
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
AND THE CITY OF SEASIDE FOR
THE NEW FORT ORD COURTHOUSE PROJECT
This Infrastructure Improvements Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ______________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), by and between the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”) and the City of Seaside (“City”). In this Agreement, the Judicial Council and the City are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. The Judicial Council and the City entered into that certain Property Acquisition Agreement of approximately even date herewith (“Acquisition Agreement”) pursuant to which the Judicial Council acquired from the City certain unimproved real property comprised of approximately 5.0 acres, as depicted in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Judicial Council Property”), located in the City of Seaside, County of Monterey, State of California, which is a portion of a larger City-owned parcel (“City Property”). Following the City’s conveyance of the Judicial Council Property to the Judicial Council, the City continued to own the City Property.
B. The Judicial Council intends to design and construct on the Judicial Council Property a three-story courthouse of approximately 83,000 square feet, commonly referred to as the New Fort Ord Courthouse (“Courthouse Project”), generally consisting as of the Effective Date of seven multi-purpose courtrooms, chambers, central holding, jury assembly, and self-help and support areas along with 280 surface parking spaces partially covered with solar power generation capability.
C. As part of Acquisition Agreement’s terms, the Parties agreed that the City will perform, and the Judicial Council will reimburse the reasonable costs actually incurred by the City for, certain off-site and infrastructure improvements needed for the Judicial Council Property to be ‘shovel-ready’ for the Courthouse Project’s commencement (collectively, the “Infrastructure Improvements”).
D. The Parties now desire to set forth the terms and conditions of the Infrastructure Improvements’ performance and payment, as more fully set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
Packet Page 340
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 2
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
AGREEMENT
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing provisions of the Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.
2. Infrastructure Improvements.
2.1. Scope of Work. By or before March 1, 2025 (“Scheduled Completion Date”), the City, in cooperation and coordination with the Judicial Council, shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of the Infrastructure Improvements to be located on the Judicial Council Property, City Property, and otherwise including, but not limited to, design, procurement, permitting, management, scheduling, and inspection in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Infrastructure Improvements generally will consist, without limitation, of the following to enable the Courthouse Project to be ‘shovel-ready’ for the Courthouse Project’s commencement and the Judicial Council to make all needed utility connections for the Courthouse Project:
2.1.1. Undergrounding of all existing overhead utility lines along Divarty Street northern line of the Property;
2.1.2. Installation of all needed sewer system(s) from Marina Coast Water District to the Judicial Council Property;
2.1.3. Installation of all needed water system(s) from Marina Coast Water District to the Judicial Council Property including, without limitation, potable, domestic, fire, and irrigation purposes;
2.1.4. Water allocation for the Judicial Council Property;
2.1.5. Installation of extension of recycled water lines from Second Avenue distribution from Marina Coast Water District to the Judicial Council Property for purposes of future connections upon availability of recycled water;
2.1.6. Coordination with the City of Marina for and construction of new curbs, gutters, and sidewalks for the Courthouse Project, as applicable; and
2.1.7. Installation of all utility connection points and other such similar or ancillary improvements related to the foregoing scope of work (including, without limitation, conduits, vaults, Christy boxes, laterals, and manholes) that will be necessary for the Judicial Council to make all utilities connections/hook-ups in the Judicial Council’s performance of the Courthouse Project on the Judicial Council Property.
Packet Page 341
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 3
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.2. Right of Entry. The Judicial Council hereby grants to the City, its agents, employees, contractors, and consultants the right to enter and access the Judicial Council Property for the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements, as applicable and needed.
2.3. Design; Final Plans.
2.3.1. City Engineer/Architect. The City shall select and retain a qualified, licensed engineer or architect reasonably acceptable to the Judicial Council (“City Engineer/Architect”) to prepare plans and specifications for the Infrastructure Improvements. The Infrastructure Improvements’ plans and specifications shall be prepared with reasonable design input from the Judicial Council. City Engineer/Architect shall timely provide the Judicial Council with preliminary drawings for the Judicial Council’s review, input, and reasonable approval.
2.3.2. Final Plans. After all reasonable comments, requests, and revisions are incorporated into the preliminary drawings, the Infrastructure Improvements’ plans and specifications shall be subject to final written approval by the City and Judicial Council, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed by either Party (as approved, the “Final Plans”). Upon the Parties’ written approval of the Final Plans, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the Final Plans shall hereby be deemed incorporated into Exhibit “B” of this Agreement by this reference. Prior to commencing construction of the Infrastructure Improvements, the City shall provide to the Judicial Council an electronic PDF copy of the Final Plans stamped by the licensed engineer or architect of record.
2.4. Permits.
2.4.1. The City is responsible for determining all applicable authorities having jurisdiction over the Infrastructure Improvements. The City shall promptly and timely submit, whenever required, the Final Plans to the appropriate governmental agencies and all authorities having jurisdiction (e.g., State Fire Marshal, Division of the State Architect, etc.) for issuance of all necessary permits and approvals required for the performance and construction of the Infrastructure Improvements including, without limitation, plan review, permitting, and inspection services (“Permits”).
2.4.2. The City is responsible for determining the required Permits which may include, but are expressly not limited to, construction permits, encroachment permits, certificates of occupancy, and conditional use permits.
2.4.3. Notwithstanding or limiting the foregoing, and without opining on which authority may or may not have jurisdiction over the Infrastructure Improvements, the City is hereby advised for informational purposes only that the Judicial Council’s Quality Compliance Manager serves as the Building Official and authority having Packet Page 342
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 4
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
jurisdiction under the California Building Code (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24) for the plan review, permitting, and inspecting of any work performed on the Judicial Council Property.
2.4.4. The City shall, upon the Judicial Council’s request, provide copies of all Permits for the Infrastructure Improvements.
2.5. Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders.
2.5.1. The Final Plans may only be modified by a written change order between and executed by the Judicial Council and City (“Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order”).
2.5.1.1. For purposes of clarification and the avoidance of doubt, the term “Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order” as used in this Agreement refers to changes, modifications, or alterations made to the Infrastructure Improvements between the Judicial Council and the City (i.e., the Judicial Council providing its approval to the City of requested additions/reductions to the scope of work, cost increases, and/or time extensions).
2.5.1.2. Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders do not refer to any separate or corresponding change orders, add services requests, or other agreements modifying the performance of the work that are entered into by the City with the City Contractor (defined below), City Engineer/Architect, or other contractors or consultants performing the Infrastructure Improvements on the City’s behalf. By way of example, the City shall be responsible for coordinating and providing for (i) the City’s receipt and review of proposed change orders from the City Contractor during construction, (ii) seeking the Judicial Council’s approval of the request in accordance herewith, (iii) entering into an Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order with the Judicial Council if approved, (iv) finalizing the City Contractor’s corresponding change order, and (v) implementing the change in the City’s performance of the Infrastructure Improvements.
2.5.1.3. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Judicial Council will at no time be in privity or have a contractual relationship with the City Contractor, City Engineer/Architect, or other contractors or consultants performing the Infrastructure Improvements on the City’s behalf. The Judicial Council accordingly shall not be responsible for providing approvals directly to said City contractors and consultants and shall only be obligated to engage with the City with respect to the Infrastructure Improvements and this Agreement.
2.5.1.4. Any modifications to this Agreement’s terms and conditions shall be specifically effectuated by a written amendment to this Agreement, not via an Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders.
Packet Page 343
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 5
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.5.2. While no specific form is required for the submission of an Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order by the City to the Judicial Council, each Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order must clearly describe the change(s) and all modifications to the Final Plans, including any cost impacts and extensions to the Scheduled Completion Date, necessitated by the Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order.
2.5.3. Prior Judicial Council approval is not required for Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order(s) in an amount less than $5,000.00 (“Minor Change(s)”). Provided, however, that if the cumulative total of such Minor Changes exceeds $50,000.00, prior Judicial Council approval will be required for all further Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders regardless of cost. The City shall provide to the Judicial Council the submittal required by this section relating to any Minor Change(s) within five (5) business days of the City approving such Minor Change(s).
2.5.4. Prior Judicial Council approval shall be required for all Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order(s) in excess of $5,000.00 or as provided herein, for all Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order(s) above the Minor Changes cumulative total of $50,000.00. The Judicial Council shall respond to the City in writing within five (5) business days of receipt of any Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order submitted by the City for the Judicial Council’s approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed; and any disapproval shall be limited to items not previously approved by the Judicial Council in the Final Plans, except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties.
2.5.5. The Judicial Council may request in writing reasonable changes to the Infrastructure Improvements and/or modifications to the Final Plans that shall be memorialized in an Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Order as set forth herein, the City’s consent to which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
2.6. Performance.
2.6.1. City Contractor Award. The City shall select a general contractor for the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements (“City Contractor”) by seeking bids of at least three (3) prospective contractors approved by the City and Judicial Council, or otherwise in accordance with applicable procurement laws to which the City is subject for the Infrastructure Improvements. In the event the City is not required to accept and award a contract to the lowest, responsive bid of a responsible bidder, the City will submit the bids received to the Judicial Council, accept the bid approved by the Judicial Council, and then enter into a contract with that selected contractor for construction of the Infrastructure Improvements.
Packet Page 344
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 6
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.6.2. Performance of Work. The City shall cause the Infrastructure Improvements to be constructed by well-trained, adequately supervised workers, in a good and workmanlike manner, free from design, material, and workmanship defects. City Contractor and its subcontractors of every tier shall secure and maintain at all times all licenses and certifications required by law in connection with the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements. City Contractor shall obtain payment and performance bonds, in amounts equal to 125% of the value of the construction contract awarded by the City, which name the Judicial Council as a dual obligee. The City shall further cause the Infrastructure Improvements to be constructed in accordance with the Final Plans and all applicable laws and regulations including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Prevailing Wage Law (California Labor Code section 1720 et seq.), the California Environmental Quality Act, and all relevant building codes.
2.6.3. Submittals. Upon receipt and as requested, the City shall provide the Judicial Council with copies of all submittals and other construction documents for the Infrastructure Improvements including, without limitation, construction schedules and schedules of values.
2.6.4. EIR; MMRP. As part of the City’s performance of the Infrastructure Improvements in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, the City shall further cause the Infrastructure Improvements to be performed pursuant to all portions of the Courthouse Project’s Environmental Impact Report prepared by the Judicial Council (“EIR”) that govern any aspect of the Infrastructure Improvements including, but specifically not limited to, the Courthouse Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) required by the EIR. In the Parties’ development and approval of the Final Plans, the Judicial Council and City shall coordinate in good faith to meet and confer on the Courthouse Project’s EIR and MMRP to ensure all applicable requirements thereof are incorporated into the City’s performance and construction of the Infrastructure Improvement accordingly. The EIR and MMRP, as adopted for the Courthouse Project, are hereby deemed incorporated into this Agreement.
2.6.5. Means and Methods. The Parties expressly acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary or any other provision of this Agreement, the City is solely responsible at all times and in all respects for the means and methods of the Infrastructure Improvements’ performance and completion. In no event whatsoever will the Judicial Council be deemed to be responsible or liable for the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements or any other work under this Agreement; nor will the Judicial Council be responsible for making any payments to any person or entity claiming entitlement to such for the Infrastructure Improvements, except for payments to only the City in strict compliance with the terms of this Agreement; nor will the Judicial Council be deemed to be in privity or otherwise have any relation with City Contractor, any of its subcontractors of any tier, or any other contractor or consultant Packet Page 345
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 7
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
retained by the City for the Infrastructure Improvements, each of which shall at all times be exclusively a contractor or consultant of the City.
2.6.6. City Contractor Insurance. The City shall require City Contractor, and any subcontractor thereof, to obtain and keep in force the following policies of insurance: (i) commercial general liability insurance coverage with a minimum limit of liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence and a $2,000,000 aggregate; (ii) automobile liability insurance coverage for all owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles in the amount of $1,000,000; (iii) workers’ compensation insurance as required by law; (iv) employers’ liability coverage with limits not less than $1,000,000 per person per accident; and (v) builder’s risk or installation insurance that covers the work of the Infrastructure Improvements for direct physical loss or damage while in the course of transportation, erection, installation, or completion with limits of liability equal to the final completed value of the Infrastructure Improvements. Prior to commencing the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements, the City shall obtain, and provide copies to the Judicial Council of, certificates of insurance from City Contractor for the required insurance which shall name as additional insureds the City of Seaside; the Judicial Council of California; the State of California; and the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey; and their respective officers, agents, and employees. City Contractor shall not commence work until all required certificates of insurance are provided to the City.
2.7. Suspension of Work. The Judicial Council may, in its discretion and without cause, order the City in writing to suspend the Infrastructure Improvements in whole or in part for such period of time as the Judicial Council may determine (“Work Suspension”). Upon the expiration or earlier written notification to the City of the termination of a Work Suspension in effect, the Parties will attempt to negotiate an adjustment for increases or decreases in the City Engineer/Architect or City Contractor’s cost of performance of the Infrastructure Improvements caused by the Work Suspension.
If the Parties cannot satisfactorily agree on an adjusted Project Price, the Judicial Council may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the City and neither Party shall have any further obligation hereunder.
2.8. Site Walk and Punch List Items.
2.8.1. When the City reasonably determines in good faith with the concurrence of the City Engineer/Architect that the Infrastructure Improvements have been constructed by the City Contractor in accordance with the Final Plans, the City shall notify the Judicial Council of such and request the that Parties promptly coordinate an initial review and walk of the Infrastructure Improvements with the City, Judicial Council, City Engineer/Architect, and City Contractor (“Site Walk”). The City and Judicial Council may agree to perform multiple Site Walks as may be needed or appropriate.
Packet Page 346
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 8
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.8.2. As part of and following the Site Walk(s), the Judicial Council shall prepare and provide to the City a written list of any items that are reasonably determined or may possibly be defective, incomplete, or not in conformance with the Final Plans (“Punch List”).
2.8.3. The Judicial Council may augment the Punch List at any time on or before thirty (30) days following the most recently conducted Site Walk. The Judicial Council’s failure to specify any item on the Punch List will not, however, waive the City’s obligation to construct the Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with the Final Plans and the terms of this Agreement.
2.8.4. The City will cause all Punch List items to be remedied within thirty (30) days of the City’s receipt of the Punch List.
2.9. Substantially Complete.
2.9.1. For purposes of this agreement, the Infrastructure Improvements will be deemed “Substantially Complete” when each of the following have occurred:
2.9.1.1. Construction of the Infrastructure Improvements has been completed in accordance with the Final Plans;
2.9.1.2. City Engineer/Architect has certified that the Infrastructure Improvements have been constructed in accordance with the Final Plans;
2.9.1.3. There is no incomplete, incompatible, or defective work;
2.9.1.4. All necessary government approvals for legal use of the Infrastructure Improvements have been obtained; and
2.9.1.5. The Judicial Council is reasonably satisfied that each of the above criteria has been achieved and, as a result, acknowledged in writing to the City that the Infrastructure Improvements are Substantially Complete in accordance herewith.
2.10. Completion.
2.10.1. Substantial Completion Date. The City shall use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the Infrastructure Improvements by the Scheduled Completion Date indicated above. Notwithstanding the Scheduled Completion Date, the date on which the Infrastructure Improvements are deemed Substantially Complete shall be referred to as the “Substantial Completion Date.”
Packet Page 347
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 9
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.10.2. Substantial Completion Notice. Within five (5) days of satisfying all requirements needed to deem the Infrastructure Improvements Substantially Complete, including the City’s receipt of the Judicial Council’s written acknowledgement thereof, the City shall provide written notice to the Judicial Council confirming the Infrastructure Improvements are Substantially Complete and the Substantial Completion Date thereof (“Substantial Completion Notice”).
2.10.3. Ownership. All Infrastructure Improvements constructed on the Judicial Council Property pursuant to this Agreement will immediately become the Judicial Council’s property upon completion.
2.11. Delay in Infrastructure Improvements Being Substantially Complete.
2.11.1. City Delay. For purposes of this section, “City Delay” means, except where and to the extent directly caused by a Judicial Council Delay (defined below):
(i) any actual delay in the design, performance, and/or completion of the Infrastructure Improvements resulting from the City not responding to requests for authorization or approval within the time period provided for response to such request or, if no such time is stated, beyond a reasonable time for such response; or (ii) any actual delay in the design, performance, and/or completion of the Infrastructure Improvements attributable to the acts or failures to act, whether willful, negligent, or otherwise, of the City, City Engineer/Architect, City Contractor, or their subcontractors, suppliers, or other agents or contractors, which includes, but is not limited to, the City’s failure to timely submit the Final Plans to all applicable authorities having jurisdiction as prescribed herein.
2.11.2. Judicial Council Delay. If the Infrastructure Improvements being deemed Substantially Complete in accordance herewith is actually delayed as a direct consequence of the Judicial Council’s actions or failures to act which is not cured within ten (10) days of the Judicial Council’s receipt of written notice thereof from the City or of a Work Suspension (“Judicial Council Delay”), then the Scheduled Completion Date under this Agreement shall be advanced in time by the number of calendar days that the Judicial Council Delay actually delays the Infrastructure Improvements from being deemed Substantially Complete. A Judicial Council Delay shall not, however, include the actions taken by the Judicial Council’s Quality Compliance Manager in the role of Building Official for the plan review, permitting, and inspection of the Infrastructure Improvements, which instead will be treated as the actions of an authority having jurisdiction over the work separate from the Judicial Council as a party to this Agreement.
2.11.3. Occurrence, Notice, and Cure of a City Delay. No City Delay shall be deemed to have occurred unless and until the Judicial Council provides written notice to the City specifying the action or inaction that the Judicial Council contends constitutes the City Delay (“Notice of City Delay”). If the City does not then cure, or commence to cure, the action or inaction causing the City Delay within one (1) business day after receipt Packet Page 348
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 10
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
of any Notice of City Delay, then the City Delay shall be deemed to have occurred commencing as of the date the Notice of the City Delay is received and shall continue for each and every calendar day that the design, performance, and/or completion of the Infrastructure Improvements, as applicable, is delayed as a result of such action or inaction by the City.
2.11.4. Result of a City Delay. If the Substantial Completion Date for the Infrastructure Improvements is delayed and occurs after the Scheduled Completion Date, then, to the extent such delay was caused by a City Delay:
2.11.4.1. Damages. The City acknowledges that any delay in the Substantial Completion Date beyond the Scheduled Completion Date (as adjusted for any Judicial Council Delay) will cause the Judicial Council to incur costs and that the exact amount of such costs will be extremely difficult and/or impossible to ascertain.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the Judicial Council’s other rights provided under this Agreement or applicable law, if the Substantial Completion Date is so delayed beyond the Scheduled Completion Date (as adjusted for any Judicial Council Delay), then, as liquidated damages during the delay as provided above, the Judicial Council will be entitled to receive and/or may deduct from amounts owed to the City under this Agreement an amount equal to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) for each and every calendar day of delay.
The Parties agree that such amount represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the damage the Judicial Council will incur by reason of the late completion of the Infrastructure Improvements and are not penalties.
2.11.4.2. Self-Performance. The Judicial Council may elect, but is not obligated, to terminate this Agreement and take over and complete the Infrastructure Improvements in accordance with this Agreement’s terms.
2.11.5. Force Majeure. If either Party is delayed or prevented from the performance of any act required for the performance and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements by reason of acts of God, strikes, lockouts, fires or explosions, failure of a governmental entity to timely issue permits or approvals that were properly and correctly submitted by the City, or restrictive governmental laws or regulations any of which is without fault, unforeseeable, and beyond the control of the obligated Party and does not constitute either a City or Judicial Council Delay (“Force Majeure Delay”), then any period of time in which the obligated Party was to perform the act shall be extended for a reasonable period equivalent to the delay resulting from the Force Majeure Delay upon written notice to the non-obligated Party of the obligated Party’s intent to invoke this provision. The Parties agree that any present or future outbreak of COVID-19, or any similar or derivative strain thereof, shall be considered reasonably foreseeable and shall not be considered a sufficient basis to constitute a Force Majeure Delay.
Packet Page 349
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 11
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
2.12. Guarantee. The City guarantees and warrants, or shall cause City Contractor to warrant, that the Infrastructure Improvements to be provided hereunder will conform to the Final Plans, applicable law, and the requirements of this Agreement. This warranty shall begin upon the Substantial Completion Date and shall extend for a period of two (2) years (“Warranty Period”). If the Judicial Council identifies any such defects in the Infrastructure Improvements during the Warranty Period, the City shall be responsible for remedying, or causing to be remedied, the defect to the reasonable satisfaction of the Judicial Council. Except as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Judicial Council, the City shall cure, or cause to be cured, any such defect with the Infrastructure Improvements within ten (10) business days following receipt of written notice from the Judicial Council of the existence of the defect, unless the cure cannot be reasonably completed in such time in which case the City shall commence the cure, or cause the cure to be commenced, within said period and diligently prosecute it to completion. In no event shall the Judicial Council be responsible for any costs to remedy any defects with the Infrastructure Improvements during the Warranty Period.
2.13. Maintenance. Upon satisfactory completion of the Infrastructure Improvements, the Judicial Council shall be responsible for all maintenance and repairs of the Infrastructure Improvements installed on and within the Judicial Council Property including, but not limited to, the performance, cost, inspection, and upkeep of such maintenance and repairs as may be needed on a regular, on-going, or future basis (collectively, “Maintenance and Repair Work”), which shall not include the maintenance or repair of the City Property or any Infrastructure Improvements installed thereon. The City shall not be responsible or have liability for the performance or costs of the Maintenance and Repair Work; provided, however, that any Maintenance and Repair Work reasonably necessitated by the improper, faulty, non-compliant, or otherwise negligent installation of the Infrastructure Improvements, including any latent defects, in addition to any defects otherwise covered during the Warranty Period will remain the responsibility of the City at its sole expense.
3. Payment of Infrastructure Improvements Costs.
3.1. Infrastructure Improvements Costs. The Judicial Council hereby agrees to pay for all costs and expenses actually and reasonably incurred by the City in the City’s execution, performance, and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements (“Infrastructure Improvements Costs”), as set forth herein.
3.2. Cost Determination.
3.2.1. Final Cost Estimate. By or before thirty (30) days of the City’s Notice of Intent to Award a contract to City Contractor for the Infrastructure Improvements and prior to City actually awarding said contract to City Contractor, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine and agree upon the total estimated Infrastructure Packet Page 350
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 12
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
Improvements Costs, inclusive of the design and construction of the Infrastructure Improvements, in the form of a schedule of values (“Schedule of Values”) of sufficient and satisfactory detail to allow the Judicial Council’s payment of Progress Payments (defined below), which agreement will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed by either Party (as approved, the “Final Cost Estimate”). Any work performed by City Engineer/Architect or City Contractor outside the scope of Infrastructure Improvements as agreed to in the Final Plans as modified by any approved Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders and as set forth in the Final Cost Estimate shall not be compensable pursuant to this Agreement.
3.2.2. City Fees. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Final Cost Estimate for the Infrastructure Improvements Costs will include reasonable fees for, without limitation, the City’s management, permitting, and administration of the Infrastructure Improvements (“City Management Fees”) to be consented to by the Judicial Council, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
3.2.3. Final Cost Estimate Notice. Once the Final Cost Estimate is mutually agreed upon by the Parties, the Judicial Council shall provide written notice to the City confirming the Final Cost Estimate for the Infrastructure Improvements Costs (“Final Cost Estimate Notice”). The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Final Cost Estimate and Final Cost Estimate Notice shall hereby be deemed incorporated into Exhibit “C” of this Agreement by this reference.
3.3. Escrow.
3.3.1. Deposit. Within forty-five (45) days of the Final Cost Estimate Notice, the Judicial Council shall deposit into escrow funds sufficient to cover the Infrastructure Improvements Costs pursuant to the Final Cost Estimate.
3.3.2. Escrow Holder. The Judicial Council shall open escrow with Stewart Title of California, Inc, at 525 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91203 (“Escrow Holder”), for the account of the City in accordance herewith, by delivering a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement and the Final Cost Estimate Notice. The Parties further agree to execute, deliver, and be bound by any reasonable or customary supplemental escrow instructions of the Escrow Holder, or other instruments as may reasonably be required by the Escrow Holder, in order to consummate the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Any such supplemental instructions shall not amend or supersede any portion of this Agreement; if there is any inconsistency between such supplemental instructions and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control.
3.3.3. Escrow Fees. The Judicial Council shall pay the associated escrow fees; provided, however, the Parties shall each be responsible to pay all costs for services Packet Page 351
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 13
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
specifically requested for their individual benefit if at all including, but not limited to, the Escrow Holder’s fees for each check or wire transfer issued to a Party pursuant hereto.
3.4. Progress Payments; Distributions.
3.4.1. Progress Payments. Following the City’s issuance of a Notice to Proceed for the commencement of the Infrastructure Improvement’s construction, the Judicial Council’s reimbursement to the City for the Infrastructure Improvements Costs, pursuant to the Final Cost Estimate and subject to any approved Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders, may be made in one or more progress payments requested by the City throughout the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements’ construction (“Progress Payment(s)”). The City shall not request Progress Payments more frequently than once per month and the total, combined amount of such Progress Payments shall not exceed ninety percent (90%) of the Final Cost Estimate.
3.4.2. Progress Payment Invoices. The City shall make each request for a Progress Payment by submitting a reasonably satisfactory invoice to the Judicial Council therefor (“Progress Payment Invoice(s)”) to [email protected] with reference to the City and the Infrastructure Improvements. Each Progress Payment Invoice shall include the Schedule of Values and a reasonably detailed breakdown of the amounts to be reimbursed including: (i) the Infrastructure Improvement Costs paid by the City substantiated by reasonably satisfactory supporting documentation including, but not limited to, City Engineer/Architect and City Contractor pay applications or invoices for the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements with proof of payment by the City therefor, and (ii) any applicable City Management Fees or other costs expressly permitted by this Agreement.
3.4.3. Progress Payment Distributions. Within thirty (30) days of the Judicial Council’s receipt of a proper Progress Payment Invoice, the Judicial Council shall notify the Escrow Holder of the Judicial Council’s approval of said Progress Payment Invoice and of the Escrow Holder’s distribution of funds to the City in the amount of said approved Progress Payment Invoice.
3.5. Overages. At any time that the Infrastructure Improvements Costs will, or are anticipated to, exceed the then-current Final Cost Estimate by ten percent (10%) or more due to approved Infrastructure Improvements Agreement Change Orders or any other reason (“Costs Overages”), the City shall immediately notify the Judicial Council in writing of such Costs Overages. In the event of any Costs Overages, the Judicial Council and City shall promptly meet and confer to determine the Judicial Council’s preferred course of action and any needed actions including, without limitation, the Judicial Council’s deposit of additional funds with the Escrow Holder to cover said Costs Overages.
Packet Page 352
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 14
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
3.6. Final Payment and Distribution.
3.6.1. Final Payment. Following the satisfactory resolution of all Punch List items and the Judicial Council’s receipt of the Substantial Completion Notice from the City, the Judicial Council shall pay the balance of any unpaid Infrastructure Improvements Costs, which balance shall not be less than ten percent (10%) of the Final Cost Estimate (“Final Payment”).
3.6.2. Final Payment Invoice. The City shall submit a reasonably satisfactory invoice to the Judicial Council for the Final Payment (“Final Payment Invoice”) to [email protected] with reference to the City and the Infrastructure Improvements. The Final Payment Invoice shall include a reasonably detailed breakdown of the final, total amount to be reimbursed including: (i) the Infrastructure Improvement Costs paid by the City substantiated by reasonably satisfactory supporting documentation including, but not limited to, final City Engineer/Architect and City Contractor pay applications or invoices for the performance of the Infrastructure Improvements with proof of payment by the City therefor, and (ii) any applicable City Management Fees or other costs expressly permitted by this Agreement.
3.6.3. Final Payment Distribution. Within thirty (30) days of the Judicial Council’s receipt of a proper Final Payment Invoice, the Judicial Council shall notify the Escrow Holder of the Judicial Council’s approval of said Final Payment Invoice and of the Escrow Holder’s final distribution of funds to the City in the amount of said approved Final Payment Invoice.
3.6.4. Judicial Council Remaining Funds Retention. The Parties acknowledge and agree that, upon the Escrow Holder’s final distribution to the City of funds pursuant to the approved Final Payment Invoice, any and all funds remaining or leftover in the escrow including, without limitation, any accrued interest shall be retained by and disbursed to the Judicial Council, upon which the escrow for the Infrastructure Improvements Costs shall be deemed closed and satisfied.
4. Termination and Takeover.
4.1. Judicial Council Right to Terminate. The Judicial Council may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement upon any of the following, without limitation:
4.1.1. The City refuses or fails to execute the Infrastructure Improvements or any separable part thereof with sufficient diligence as will ensure its completion within thirty (30) days of the time specified herein or any extension thereof.
4.1.2. The City fails to complete the Infrastructure Improvements within the time specified or any extension thereof.
Packet Page 353
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 15
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
4.1.3. The City persistently or repeatedly refuses or fails, except in cases for which extension of time is provided, to supply enough properly skilled workers or proper materials to complete the Infrastructure Improvements in the time specified.
4.1.4. The City, City Engineer/Architect, City Contractor or any other contractors of any tier are otherwise in breach, default, or in substantial violation of any provision of this Agreement.
4.2. Notification of Termination and Cure Period.
4.2.1. Upon the occurrence of any of the above conditions in the Judicial Council’s sole determination, the Judicial Council may, without prejudice to or limiting any other rights or remedies available under this Agreement and applicable law, notify the City in writing of the alleged breach or default and the termination of this Agreement.
4.2.2. Unless the City satisfactorily cures or corrects the breach or default, or satisfactorily demonstrates the commencement of and reasonable progress towards the same, within five (5) days from receipt of said termination notice, this Agreement shall cease and terminate.
4.3. Effect of Termination.
4.3.1. Cease Work. In the event of and upon this Agreement’s termination, the City including City Engineer/Architect and City Contractor shall immediately cease all work, remove all materials and personal property belonging to the City or City Contractor from the Judicial Council Property, and not incur any additional costs for the Infrastructure Improvements. The Judicial Council retains the right, but not the obligation, to keep and use any materials and personal property belonging to the City or City Contractor that have not been incorporated in the construction of the Infrastructure Improvements.
4.3.2. Payment upon Termination. Following the termination of this Agreement, the Judicial Council shall be responsible to reimburse the City for only those costs of the Infrastructure Improvements that have been properly performed and actually incurred by the City up to and through the effectiveness of said termination as reasonably determined and estimated in good faith by the Judicial Council; provided, however, that the Judicial Council may deduct from any amounts owed to the City the costs of any damages incurred by the Judicial Council as a result of or arising from the City’s breach or default, to correct any work improperly performed by the City, or as otherwise permitted under this Agreement.
Packet Page 354
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 16
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
4.4. Takeover and Self-Performance.
4.4.1. Takeover. In the event of and upon this Agreement’s termination, the Judicial Council shall take over and be responsible for the remaining performance and completion of the Infrastructure Improvements, the means and methods of which shall be performed in the Judicial Council’s sole discretion following the effectiveness of this Agreement’s termination.
4.4.2. Assignment of Construction Documents. The City agrees to cooperate and coordinate with the Judicial Council and take reasonable efforts to provide, obtain copies of, and assign, at no cost or expense to the Judicial Council, any and all documents related to the Infrastructure Improvements and the City’s performance thereof including, without limitation, any and all:
4.4.2.1. Contracts for the design and construction of the Infrastructure Improvements including all work product thereof;
4.4.2.2. Project documents, plans, specifications, drawings, certifications, bid documents, books, reports, accounts, estimates, documents, detailed financial information, certified payrolls, invoices, and any other construction documents for the Infrastructure Improvements; and
4.4.2.3. Permits and easements for or related to the
Infrastructure Improvements.
4.4.3. Access to City Property. For any portion of the Infrastructure Improvements located on or within the City Property to be performed by the Judicial Council in accordance with this section, the City agrees to provide and hereby grants to the Judicial Council access to, over, on, under, and through the City Property reasonably required by the Judicial Council for the duration of the Infrastructure Improvements’ completion.
4.4.4. Judicial Council-Performed Work. The Judicial Council shall not be responsible to pay the City for any portion of the Infrastructure Improvements performed or completed by the Judicial Council or for any other costs because of the Judicial Council’s takeover and self-performance of the Infrastructure Improvements.
5. Indemnification.
5.1. City Indemnification. The City agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify, defend (with counsel satisfactory to the Judicial Council), and hold harmless the State Indemnities (defined below), from and against all liability, penalties, losses, damages, costs, expenses, causes of action, claims, or judgments, including but not Packet Page 355
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 17
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
limited to attorneys’ fees, caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or incidental to (i) the Infrastructure Improvements and the City’s obligations under this Agreement; or (ii) any breach, default, or failure to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the State Indemnitees.
5.2. Definition of State Indemnities. The term “State Indemnitees” refers singularly and collectively to the Judicial Council of California; the State of California; the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey; and their respective officers, judicial officers, agents, contractors, representatives, volunteers, and employees, in both individual and official capacities.
5.3. Survival of Indemnification. The City’s defense and indemnification obligations hereunder shall survive the expiration or any earlier termination of this Agreement until all claims involving any of the indemnified matters against the State Indemnitees are either concluded or fully, finally, and absolutely barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
6. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute between the Parties relating to performance of the Parties’ obligations under this Agreement, the Parties will, before exercising any other right or remedy for resolution of the dispute, meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute through unassisted negotiation. Each of the Parties shall be represented in any such negotiation session by a representative(s) who is familiar with the facts of the dispute, and who has authority to negotiate on behalf of and to effectively recommend settlement to the Party that he, she, or they represent. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute through such unassisted negotiations, then a Party may request the dispute be submitted to mediation for resolution.
7. Notices. Any notice, tender, delivery, or other communication required pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing and, to be deemed to be properly given, shall be either:
(i) personally delivered; (ii) mailed by depositing such notice in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid; or (iii) sent by a reputable overnight delivery service, addressed as follows or to such other place as each Party hereto may designate by subsequent written notice to the other Party:
If to the City:
City of Seaside
Attn: City Engineer
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Voice: 831-899-6884
E-Mail: [email protected]
Packet Page 356
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 18
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
With an Email Copy to:
[email protected]
If to the Judicial Council:
Judicial Council of California
Facilities Services
Attn: Senior Project Manager
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Voice: 805-249-0911
With a copy to:
Judicial Council of California
Facilities Services
Attn: Principal Manager, Project Management
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
8. General Provisions.
8.1. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and every provision hereof in which time is an element.
8.2. Calculation of Time. Under this Agreement, when the day upon which performance would otherwise be required or permitted is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, then the time for performance shall be extended to the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. The term “holiday” shall mean all and only those State holidays specified in section 6700 of the California Government Code.
8.3. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the attached exhibits shall constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties hereto regarding the conveyance and acquisition of the Property, and all prior agreements, understandings, representations, or negotiations, whether oral or written, are hereby superseded, terminated, and canceled in their entirety and are of no further force or effect.
8.4. Amendments. This Agreement may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by the Parties.
8.5. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be considered a waiver of any other provision or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other Packet Page 357
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 19
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by either Party of any remedy provided in this Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that Party of any other remedy provided in this Agreement or at law or in equity.
8.6. Non-Assignability. The City may not assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement or any rights, privileges, or obligations hereunder to any other person or entity without the prior, written consent of the Judicial Council.
8.7. Binding on Successors. In the event of any proper assignment or transfer of this Agreement, the terms and conditions herein contained will apply to and bind the heirs, successors in interest, executors, administrators, representatives, and assigns of the Parties hereto.
8.8. Applicable Law. The Parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of California. The Parties hereto expressly agree that this Agreement shall in all respects be governed and enforced by the laws of the State of California and any claim to enforce the provisions hereof shall be brought in the Superior Court of California.
8.9. Severability. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as to require the commission of any act contrary to law and, wherever there is any conflict between any provision contained herein and any present statute, law, ordinance, or regulation as to which the Parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail, but the affected provisions of this Agreement shall be limited only to the extent necessary to bring them within the requirements of such law. It is hereby stipulated and declared to be the intention of the Parties that each would have executed all other terms, provisions, covenants, and restrictions set forth in this Agreement without including any such provisions in conflict with law that may be hereafter declared invalid, void, or unenforceable.
8.10. Employees and Agents of the Parties. It is understood and agreed that all persons hired or engaged by one Party shall be considered to be employees or agents only of that Party, as applicable, and not of the other Party.
8.11. Further Acts. Each of the Parties agrees to do such further acts and to execute and deliver such other and further documents or instruments as may be reasonably required in order to give full effect to the provisions of this Agreement.
8.12. Counterparts and Electronic Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts (including PDF copies), each of which shall be deemed an original as against the Party signing such counterpart and which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. The Parties agree that the signature pages of this Agreement may be executed, scanned, and transmitted electronically and electronic signatures shall be deemed original signatures for purposes of this Agreement, with such scanned and electronic Packet Page 358
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 20
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
signatures having the same legal effect as original signatures.
9. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein by reference.
9.1. Exhibit “A”: Depiction of Judicial Council Property
9.2. Exhibit “B”: Final Plans
9.3. Exhibit “C”: Final Cost Estimate
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE(S)]
Packet Page 359
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement 21
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Infrastructure Improvements Agreement on the dates indicated below.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Judicial Council of California,
Legal Services
By: _______________________
Name: Insert
Title: Insert
Date: _______________________
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA
By: ______________________________
Name: Insert
Title: Insert
Date: ______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: _________________________
Name: Insert
Title: Insert
Date: _________________________
CITY OF SEASIDE
By: ______________________________
Name: Insert
Title: Insert
Date: ______________________________
FORM: NOT FOR EXECUTION
FORM: NOT FOR EXECUTION
Packet Page 360
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement A-1 Depiction of Judicial Council Property Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
EXHIBIT “A”
TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
DEPICTION OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL PROPERTY
TO BE INSERTED PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
Packet Page 361
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement B-1 Final Plans
Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
EXHIBIT “B”
TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
FINAL PLANS
Pursuant to section 2.3.2.3 (Final Plans) of this Agreement, the Final Plans for the Infrastructure Improvements shall be deemed incorporated into this Exhibit upon the Parties’ approval.
Packet Page 362
Infrastructure Improvements Agreement C-1 Final Cost Estimate Judicial Council & City of Seaside (Fac. No. 27-J1)
EXHIBIT “C”
TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
FINAL COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to section 3.2.3 (Final Cost Estimate) of this Agreement, the Final Cost Estimate for the Infrastructure Improvements Costs shall be deemed incorporated into this Exhibit upon the Parties’ approval.
Packet Page 363
New Fort Ord
Courthouse
CEQA Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER:
2022070304
Prepared for:
Judicial Council of California
AUGUST 2023
Packet Page 364
This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 365
Prepared for:
Judicial Council of California
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Contact:
Kim Bobic
Sr. Project Manager
Phone: 805-249-0911
[email protected]
Prepared by:
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact:
Matthew Gerken
Principal-in-Charge
Phone: 916-205-4385
[email protected]
Printed on environmentally responsible paper. Made from 100% recycled post-consumer waste.
Packet Page 366
This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 367
Table of Contents
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1
2. Project Description........................................................................................................................3
3. Procedural Findings......................................................................................................................5
4. Record of Proceedings .................................................................................................................7
5. Findings Required Under CEQA...................................................................................................9
6. Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................11
6.1 Findings Regarding EIR Errata and EIR Recirculation ..................................................11
6.2 Revision to the EIR and Errata to FEIR .........................................................................12
6.3 Findings Regarding Significant Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant...............................................................................................................12
6.4 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant...............................................................................................................18
6.5 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................21
6.6 Mitigation Monitoring ......................................................................................................21
7. Project Alternatives .....................................................................................................................23
7.1 Alternatives Considered But Ultimately Rejected ..........................................................23
7.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIR ................................................................................23
7.3 Findings..........................................................................................................................24
8. Statement of Overriding Considerations.....................................................................................25
9. References..................................................................................................................................27 Tables
Table 6-1. Findings for Mitigated Impacts .............................................................................................13 Table 6-2. Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...............................................................19 Packet Page 368
Table of Contents
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Seaside
DEIR Draft EIR
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ETMC Esselen Tribe of Monterey County
Farmland Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
Judicial Council Judicial Council of California
KaKoon KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOP Notice of Preparation
proposed Project or Project New Fort Ord Courthouse Project Rumšen Rumšen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone
TAMC Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Packet Page 369
Introduction
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
1 1. Introduction
The purpose of these findings is to satisfy the requirements of sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, associated with approval of the New Fort Ord Courthouse Project (proposed Project or Project), which has been designated as an Immediate and Critical Need courthouse project by the Judicial Council of California (Judicial Council).
The Judicial Council, which is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed Project, is proposing to develop a new, approximately 83,000-square-foot, three-story courthouse with associated surface parking and landscaping on an approximately 5-acre parcel of land.
The CEQA Statute (California Public Resources Code sections 21000, et seq.) and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, sections 15000, et seq.) state that if it has been determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared. Prior to approval of the project, the EIR must be certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15090. When an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15091, for each identified significant impact:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final environmental impact report.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
CEQA Guidelines section 15092 states that, after consideration of an EIR, and in conjunction with making the section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. A project that would result in a significant environmental impact cannot be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives can avoid or substantially lessen the impact.
However, in the absence of feasible mitigation, an agency may approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts, if there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations that outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. CEQA Guidelines section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in a “statement of overriding considerations” as a part of the record.
The requirements of CEQA Guidelines sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, as summarized above, are all addressed herein. This document summarizes the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations authorized by those provisions of the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed Project.
Packet Page 370
Introduction
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
2 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 371
Project Description
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
3 2. Project Description
The Project proposes to consolidate most family law, probate, and civil operations into one central location in northern Monterey County through construction and operation of a new Fort Ord Courthouse within the city of Seaside (City), with the objectives of improving public access to justice, enhancing courthouse operational efficiency, replacing inadequate and obsolete buildings, and optimizing court facilities within the county while conforming to California Trial Court Facilities Standards. For a detailed Project Description, refer to Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of the Draft EIR (DEIR), which includes proposed Project objectives in Section 2.2 (Project Purpose and Objectives).
Packet Page 372
Project Description
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
4 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 373
Procedural Findings
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
5 3. Procedural Findings
Pursuant to sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Judicial Council circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project to the public, State Clearinghouse, responsible trustee, and other relevant local, State, and federal agencies, and posted this NOP with the Monterey County Clerk. The scoping period began on Monday July 18, 2022 and extended through August 17, 2022.
To provide an additional opportunity for input, the Judicial Council held a public scoping meeting in the City on September 7, 2022, and shared information about the proposed Project, how to access proposed Project documents, and how to participate in the public review process. In preparing the Draft EIR (DEIR), the Judicial Council considered comments submitted in response to the NOP and offered at the public scoping meeting. Appendix A of the DEIR includes comments received on the NOP.
The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning on April 6, 2023 and concluding on Monday May 22, 2023, during which agencies and organizations submitted public comments and input.
After the close of the public review period, Judicial Council prepared a Final EIR (FEIR) including copies of comments submitted on the DEIR, responses to the comments, and minor changes to the text of the DEIR.
As the Judicial Council did not have a record of California Native American tribes asking to be on its list for Project notification for Monterey County, the Judicial Council proactively reached out to each Tribe on the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) list for Tribal Governments that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the proposed Project area. The tribes were provided notices about the proposed Project and were invited to consult with the Judicial Council. Four tribes responded to the initial request for consultation: the KaKoon Ta Ruk Band of Ohlone-Costanoan Indians of the Big Sur Rancheria (KaKoon), the Rumšen Am:a Tur:ataj Ohlone (Rumšen), the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (ETMC), and the Salinan Tribe of Monterey. After receiving initial Project information and providing a summary of Esselen history, ETMC declined further engagement in the Assembly Bill (AB) 52 tribal consultation process and that consultation was closed. Similarly, the Salinan Tribe of Monterey requested archaeological reports related to the Project, but later realized the proposed Project site is outside of their area of traditional and cultural affiliation and withdrew their consultation request. The Judicial Council continued to actively engage in the AB 52 tribal consultation process with KaKoon and Rumšen to identify, avoid, preserve in place, and mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, and directly incorporated recommendations into the DEIR.
The FEIR was released in August 2023. The FEIR consists of the April 2023 DEIR; Comments and Responses to Comments on the DEIR; Errata to the DEIR; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15088(b), public agencies that commented on the DEIR are provided at least 10 days to review the proposed responses prior to the date for consideration of the FEIR for certification. Therefore, the Judicial Council provided the FEIR, with responses to comments, to commenting public agencies at least 10 days prior to certification.
Packet Page 374
Procedural Findings
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
6 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 375
Record of Proceedings
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
7 4. Record of Proceedings
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e), the record of proceedings for the Judicial Council's decision on the project includes the following documents, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings:
► The NOP, comments received on the NOP and all other public notices issued by the Judicial Council in relation to the EIR (e.g., Notice of Availability);
► The DEIR and all appendices to the DEIR and technical materials cited in the DEIR; ► The FEIR and all appendices to the FEIR, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project;
► All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the DEIR; ► All studies conducted for the Project and contained or referenced in the DEIR or the FEIR; ► All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared for the Judicial Council and other agencies; and
► Any additional items not included above if otherwise required by law.
The documents constituting the record of proceedings are available upon request for review by responsible agencies and interested members of the public, only by appointment during regular business hours (8:00 am through 4:30 pm) at Judicial Council of California, 455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102-3688. The custodian of these documents is Kim Bobic, Senior Project Manager, email and telephone contact provided below:
Kim Bobic, Senior Project Manager
Judicial Council of California; Facilities Services
805-249-0911
[email protected]
Packet Page 376
Record of Proceedings
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
8 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 377
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
9 5. Findings Required Under CEQA
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 of the Public Resources Code goes on to state that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions.
The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(1)). For purposes of these findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level.
In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-than-significant level.
The second permissible finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2)).
The third potential conclusion is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR (CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3)). “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors (CEQA Guidelines section 15364). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. Moreover, 'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417).
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a lead agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons in support of the finding that the project benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. In the process of considering the proposed Project EIR for certification, the Judicial Council has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in all instances. To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the adopted mitigation, the Judicial Council has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the proposed Project. Those findings are reflected herein in Section 5, “Findings Required under CEQA” below and in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations.”
Packet Page 378
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
10 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 379
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
11 6. Summary of Findings
The DEIR identified a number of less-than-significant impacts associated with the proposed Project that do not require mitigation. The DEIR also identified significant and potentially significant environmental effects (or impacts) that may be caused in whole or in part by the proposed Project. Most of these significant effects can be fully avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. A few effects cannot be, and thus are determined to be significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in Section 7, “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” however, the Judicial Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed Project.
The findings of the Judicial Council with respect to the Project's significant effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the DEIR, FEIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Summary of Findings does not attempt to reiterate the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the DEIR and FEIR. The following sections provide a summary description of each potentially significant and significant impact, describes the applicable mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and adopted by the Judicial Council, and states the findings of the Judicial Council regarding the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. Please refer to the DEIR and the FEIR for more detail. The DEIR and the FEIR are herein incorporated by reference and the conclusions of the EIR are summarized in this document.
The Judicial Council hereby adopts and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the record into these findings, and adopts and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the DEIR and FEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings. In adopting these Findings, the Judicial Council finds that the EIR was presented to the decision-making body, that the Judicial Council reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving the proposed Project, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Judicial Council.
6.1 Findings Regarding EIR Errata and EIR
Recirculation
CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after the lead agency gives public notice of the availability of the DEIR but before certification. “Information” may include project changes, changes to the environmental setting, or additional data or other information. The Guidelines do not consider new information to be significant unless the lead agency changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate the impact that the agency or project proponent has declined to implement.
Section 15088.5 states “significant new information” requiring recirculation may include:
1. A new significant environmental impact that had not previously been disclosed in the DEIR would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure;
2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that had already been identified unless mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;
3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure would considerably lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the proponents will not adopt it; or
4. The DEIR was so inadequate and conclusory that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
Packet Page 380
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
12 6.2 Revision to the EIR and Errata to FEIR
In response to comments from the public and other public agencies on the DEIR, the Judicial Council has incorporated minor changes into the FEIR, which are described in Chapter 3, “Errata.” Minor changes are limited to revisions within two Chapters of the DEIR: (1) the Executive Summary, and (2) Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.” Changes to the Executive Summary includes revisions to two entries in Table ES-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures: (1) under the "Mitigation Measures" column for Impact 4.3-1 and (2) the "Significance after Mitigation" column for Impact
4.5-1. Changes to Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,” include revisions to revise the wording of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d as described in Section 4.3, “Biological Resources,” so that instead of referencing a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer, the measure references the distances described in a new table, Table 4.3-4, Recommended Buffer Distances for Burrowing Owls, which includes distances in meters for a low-, medium-, and high-level of disturbance by time of year and distance from nesting site location. Additionally, changes to Section 4.9, “Transportation,” include minor updates related to Monterey-Salinas Transit bus service operations. These changes do not change the analysis or conclusions presented in the DEIR. No significant new information has been added to the EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the DEIR. Therefore, recirculation of the EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 is not required.
6.3 Findings Regarding Significant Environmental
Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less than
Significant
The Judicial Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the DEIR, FEIR, and MMRP that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level are summarized in Table 5-1 below. Refer to the DEIR and the FEIR for more detail.
Packet Page 381
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
13 Table 6-1. Findings for Mitigated Impacts
Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR
Pages for
Reference
4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-2. Substantially damage
scenic resources within a
designated scenic highway.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.1-3
Mitigation
Measure 4.1-4
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects associated with scenic resources within a highway eligible for designation.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to the existing highway because trees at the Project site would be retained to the maximum extent feasible and maintained as directed in the Project’s Forest Management Plan; and the Judicial Council would contribute to the establishment of a City park area that would facilitate preservation of existing mature trees west of the proposed Project site. Retained and established trees would screen views of the new courthouse from SR-1.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.1-16 to
4.1-17
4.3 Biological
Resources
4.3-1. Adverse Effects on
Special-Status Species.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1a
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1b
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1c
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1d
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1e
Mitigation
Measure 4.3-1f
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with adverse effects on special-status species.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a would reduce potentially significant impacts on special-status species by requiring worker education and biological monitoring.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b would reduce potentially significant impacts on special status plants by requiring protocol-level surveys, and if found, preparation of a Special-status Mitigation Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1c would reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds by requiring that either tree and vegetation removal be conducted outside of the nesting season or
require implementation of avoidance buffers for active bird nests and biological monitoring. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1d would reduce potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls by requiring pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls, and if found, implementation of avoidance buffers during the
4.3-18 to
4.3-23
Packet Page 382
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
14 Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR
Pages for
Reference
nesting season. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1e would reduce potentially significant impacts on special-status bat species by requiring that tree removal be scheduled to occur outside of the wintering hibernation period.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1f would reduce potentially significant impacts to Smith’s blue butterfly by requiring pre-construction surveys, and if found, salvage of plants.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be less than significant.
4.4 Cultural
Resources
4.4-2. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to § 15064.5.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.4-2
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects associated with archaeological resources.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources by requiring coordination with the appropriate federal, state, and local agency(ies), to avoid, preserve in place, move, record, or otherwise treat discovered archeological resources
appropriately.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.4-6 to
4.4-8
4.4 Cultural
Resources
4.4-3. Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.4-3
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required or
incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects associated with the disturbance of previously
undiscovered human remains.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, requiring
compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and the California Public Resources Code, would reduce the
potential for impacts on previously undiscovered human
remains.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.4-8
Packet Page 383
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
15 Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR
Pages for
Reference
4.6 Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
4.6-2. Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through
reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident
conditions involving the
release of hazardous
materials into the
environment.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.6-2
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with hazard to the public or the
environment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to public or
environmental hazards because previously undiscovered
hazardous substances, if found, would be removed and
properly disposed of by a licensed contractor in accordance with federal and State regulations and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) would be prepared and implemented.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.6-10 to
4.6-12
4.7 Hydrology and
Water Quality
4.7-4. Substantially alter
drainage patterns or add
impervious surfaces that
would exceed storm
drainage systems, provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff,
or result in increased
flooding.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.7-4
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with drainage patterns or impervious
surfaces that would exceed storm drainage systems.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to stormwater drainage, sources of polluted runoff, and flooding because a hydrologic study would be performed to determine the sizing, type, number, and location of appropriate stormwater
detention/water quality treatment features and a Stormwater Control Plan would be prepared and implemented.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.7-16 to
4.7-18
4.8 Noise and
Vibration
4.8-1. Short-term noise
levels from construction
activities.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.8-1
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with short-term noise levels from
construction activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on short-term noise levels from construction activities because the use of noise-suppression devices would provide at least a 3 decibel (dB) reduction in
4.8-19 to
4.8-22
Packet Page 384
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
16 Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR
Pages for
Reference
noise and is based on a conservative assumption of all
equipment operating at the same location and at the same time.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.9 Transportation 4.9-3. The Project would not
substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment).
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.9-3
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to transportation hazards by requiring tree trimming and the management of vegetation to allow for adequate stopping sight distance along Divarty Street.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.9-15 to
4.9-16
4.10 Tribal Cultural
Resources
4.10-1. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.10-1
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.
Although there are no tribal cultural resources, historical resources, or unique archaeological resources known to exist within the proposed Project site or a 0.25-mile radius from the site, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to unanticipated tribal cultural resources through the implementation of tribal cultural resources discovery protocols.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.10-8 to
4.10-9
Packet Page 385
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
17 Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR
Pages for
Reference
4.10 Tribal Cultural
Resources
4.10-2: Disturb any human
remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries.
Potentially
significant
Mitigation
Measure 4.10-2
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which would avoid or
substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effect associated with disturbing any human remains.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to human remains by ensuring that in the unlikely event that human remains are
encountered during construction, remains would be treated in an appropriate manner, as required under CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations, and a most likely
descendant (MLD) would be consulted.
Therefore, with implementation of mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
4.10-9 to
4.10-10
Packet Page 386
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
18 6.4 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Not
Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less than Significant
While the mitigation measures imposed would substantially lessen each impact, due to the economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations summarized below and detailed in the DEIR and FEIR, the following significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would reduce the environmental impact to that of a less-than-significant level.
The Judicial Council finds that the Project's environmental, economic, social, and other benefits outweigh and override the significant adverse impact related to change in the environment. The Judicial Council hereby elects to approve the Project due to overriding considerations as set forth in Section 7 of this document, “Statement of Overriding Considerations.”
Packet Page 387
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
19 Table 6-2. Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR Pages
for
Reference
4.1 Aesthetics 4.1-1. Substantially degrade
the existing visual character
or conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.
Significant Mitigation
Measure 4.1-1
Mitigation
Measure 4.1-2
Finding: Based on the analysis contained within the DEIR and FEIR, other considerations in the record, and the impact evaluation criteria, the Judicial Council finds that although reasonable people can disagree as to whether a change from open space to a well-designed building represents a degradation of visual character or quality, a conservative approach has been taken to acknowledge that even with implementation of sound design principals embodied in the Judicial Council’s Facilities Standards, some viewers would consider the change from existing open space to a proposed courthouse and parking to represent an impact associated with degradation of the existing visual character and quality that is significant.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 would reduce the Project’s impact because trees at the Project site would be retained to the maximum extent feasible and maintained in accordance with recommendations provided in the Tree Resource Assessment Forest Management Plan related to tree removal and re-planting, best management practices, tree protection standards, and tree pruning guidelines. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would require that the Judicial Council make a one-time fee payment to the City of Seaside for City development of a park area immediately adjacent to, and west of the Project site, facilitating the preservation of existing mature trees.
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2, because of the change of the site from open space to a developed site with a building and parking, the Project would represent a substantial change in the visual character of the Project site as viewed from surrounding key viewsheds..
There is no additional feasible mitigation. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
4.1-12 to
4.1-16
4.9 Transportation
4.9-2. Consistency with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3(b) (VMT).
Significant Mitigation
Measure 4.9-2
Finding: Based on the analysis contained within the DEIR and FEIR, other considerations in the record, and the impact evaluation criteria, the Judicial Council finds that the proposed Project is consistent with the intent of SB 743 (which addresses vehicular travel demand or ‘VMT’) to promote infill development and public health through active transportation and there is no impact related to GHG emissions.
Mitigation imposed on the proposed Project includes offering and promoting telecommuting and alternative work schedules that would allow employees that choose to drive to work to avoid that drive on some days. Mitigation also includes the inclusion of end-of-trip facilities (showers, lockers, etc. for cyclists), which helps to encourage
4.9-12 to
4.9-15
Packet Page 388
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
20 Section Number
and Name Impact Number and Title
Pre-mitigation
Impact
Conclusion
Identified
Mitigation
Number Finding
DEIR Pages
for
Reference
employees to commute via bicycle. These measures are anticipated to reduce employee related VMT by approximately one to ten percent.
The proposed Project would not create new activities, operations, services, or employment, but would involve shifting some activities and operations from locations that are currently more VMT efficient compared to the proposed Project area today, but are anticipated to become less VMT efficient compared to the Project area by 2045.
Virtual service opportunities are anticipated to further reduce VMT, but there is not sufficient data at this time to support a quantified estimate of VMT reduction benefits of electronic filing, remote access to legal information, and other online and virtual programs. Therefore, the impact associated with Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) (VMT) is significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-2, Implement Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b, would require travel demand reduction measures including, at a minimum, telecommuting and alternative work schedules and the incorporation of end-of-trip facilities (i.e., showers, lockers, and similar features, for cyclists) as part of Project design and implementation.
While travel demand reduction measures may reduce the potential for impacts resulting from employee-related vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these measures would not influence the VMT associated with visitor trips to the Project site over which the Judicial Council exercises relatively less influence.
There is no additional feasible mitigation. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Packet Page 389
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
21 6.5 Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts
The DEIR determined that the proposed Project would cause significant cumulative impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas, and transportation. However, the DEIR determined that with mitigation measures (discussed above), the Project's impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Accordingly, for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and transportation, the Judicial Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant cumulative impact on these resources.
For aesthetics, as determined in the DEIR, proposed development to the north and south of the proposed Project site would result in significant impacts related to degradation of visual character. As discussed above in Section 5.5, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 would reduce the proposed Project’s impacts related to degradation of visual character, but not to a less-than-significant level. Because no other feasible mitigation measures are available, the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this significant cumulative impact. There is no feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact. The impact would be significant and unavoidable.
For greenhouse gas emissions, as determined in the DEIR, implementation of the proposed Project could result in the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at a level that may have a significant impact on the environment and conflict with State GHG emission targets adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. While implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the generation of longterm operational GHG emissions, as well as align the Project’s long-term operations with the actions for new commercial development, these mitigation measures would not reduce Project emissions to a level consistent with the State GHG efficiency threshold for 2050. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a substantial contribution to the significant impact of climate change. There is no additional feasible mitigation. This impact is cumulatively considerable and unavoidable with the implementation of mitigation.
Please refer to Section 4.5, “Greenhouse Gas,” Chapter 5 [“Cumulative Impacts”] and Chapter 6 [“Other CEQA Considerations”] of the DEIR for a comprehensive discussion of cumulative impacts.
6.6 Mitigation Monitoring
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared for the proposed Project (see Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); CEQA Guidelines section 15097). The Judicial Council will use the MMRP to track compliance with project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.
Packet Page 390
Findings Required Under CEQA
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
22 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 391
Project Alternatives
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
23 7. Project Alternatives
Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine, with respect to such impacts, whether there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.
As noted under the heading “Findings Required under CEQA,” an alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417). Whether to reject or approve any of the alternatives is a decision only for the decisionmakers. (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 980‒981.) They may reject alternatives that are undesirable from a policy standpoint. (Id. at p. 1001.)
7.1 Alternatives Considered But Ultimately Rejected
The EIR must examine in detail only those alternatives that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, taking into account factors that include site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; control or access to alternative sites (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)). The following alternative courthouse locations were considered but ultimately dismissed from further consideration. For details of the rationale as to why these locations were dismissed from further consideration refer to Chapter 7, “Alternatives analysis,” of the DEIR (pages 7-3 to 7-5):
► Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) Property ► The Dunes Site
► General Jim Moore Boulevard Site
► Alternate Locations Within the Main Gate Property
► 2200 Garden Road Site
► Single Courtroom Courthouse Location
7.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIR
The DEIR evaluated the No Project Alternative and two other alternatives to the proposed Project:
Alternative 1, Renovation of Existing Courthouses; and Alternative 2, Reduced New Courthouse Size and Partial Renovation of Existing Facilities.
The No Project Alternative (as described on page 7-6 of the DEIR) proposes that courthouse services remain in their current buildings without any seismic or facility upgrades. As part of the No Project Alternative evaluation, it is assumed that if the proposed Project is not developed, the Project site could be transformed according to the City of Seaside 2010 Project at Main Gate Specific Plan, which suggests the development of a paved parking lot and urban landscaping to accommodate a nine-story hotel and spa in the southern portion of the site and extending into an adjacent parcel. The purpose of the No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed Project with the impacts of not approving the proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) requires consideration of a No Project Alternative that represents the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. The No Project Alternative does not meet the basic project objectives.
Packet Page 392
Project Alternatives
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
24 Alternative 1 (Renovation of Existing Courthouses) (as described on pages 7-6 to 7-8 of the DEIR), involves renovating and reconfiguring the Monterey Courthouse, Juvenile Courthouse, and Gabilan Annex to address their respective deficiencies. Alternative 1 focuses on upgrading the Monterey Courthouse's and Juvenile Courthouse's infrastructure, replacing or upgrading aging components to meet current standards, and correction of seismic deficiencies. Renovation of the Gabilan Annex is not considered under Alternative 1 due to space limitations and constraints. Because renovation projects would impact existing court services and county operations, Alternative 1 assumes the requirement of temporary swing space, or space that would temporarily house court operations and services during construction. Alternative 1 aims to reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Project, but it would not fully achieve objectives such as improving public access to justice, consolidating operations, relieving court space shortfalls, or optimizing the use of other county court facilities.
Alternative 2 (Reduced New Courthouse Size and Partial Renovation of Existing Facilities) (as described on page 7-8 of the DEIR) would involve reducing the size of the new courthouse and parking lot, as compared to the proposed Project, such that it would replace only the existing Monterey Courthouse (e.g., five courtrooms which support eight judicial officers). Alternative 2 would not replace or consolidate services presently located at the Gabilan Annex, the Marina Courthouse (child support caseload), the Salinas Courthouse (juvenile dependency case load), or the Juvenile Courthouse. Instead, the Juvenile Courthouse would be renovated. Similar to Alternative 1, renovation of the Gabilan Annex is not considered due to space limitations and constraints. The main intention of Alternative 2 is to reduce the height of the courthouse from three stories (60 feet) to two stories (44 feet). This reduction aims to minimize the impact on aesthetic resources. Additionally, the smaller courthouse would slightly reduce the required parking, reducing impacts to aesthetic resources associated with the conversion of the undeveloped site to a developed use.
7.3 Findings
As discussed on page 7-30 of the DEIR, from the alternatives evaluated in this EIR, Alternative 2 (Reduced New Courthouse Size and Partial Renovation of Existing Facilities Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative, reducing adverse impacts to aesthetics, long-term operational emissions (air quality), transportation, and energy. These reductions are generally attributed to the reduction in size of the new courthouse under Alternative 2, specifically the reduction of the courthouse height. As compared to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, and impacts related to noise. All other environmental resource topic areas were determined to have a similar level of impact, as compared to the proposed.
Generally, the No Project Alternative would result in similar or greater impacts as compared to the proposed Project, including potentially increased impacts to aesthetics, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, and utilities.
Alternative 1 was determined to result in some increases and some reduction of impacts, as compared to the proposed Project. Specifically, reduction of impacts to aesthetic resources and biological resources, and increase of impacts to energy; geology, soils, and paleontological resources; and construction-related noise. All other environmental resource topic areas were determined to have a similar level of impact, as compared to the proposed Project. Alternative 1 would not fully achieve objectives such as improving public access to justice, consolidating operations, relieving court space shortfalls, or optimizing the use of other county court facilities, and therefore is rejected as infeasible.
While Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior alternative, this alternative would not meet objectives related to improving the public’s access to justice, enhancing public service and courthouse operational efficiency by consolidating family law and civil operations, relieving current court space shortfalls and overcrowding, replacing operations at non-State-owned facilities, consolidating case load types, or optimizing the use of other Monterey County court facilities. Based on impacts identified in the EIR and throughout this findings document, the Judicial Council finds that the proposed Project is the most feasible and appropriate, finds that the proposed Project best meets the objectives, and rejects the other alternatives, including Alternative 2, and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible.
Packet Page 393
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
25 8. Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Pursuant to section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Judicial Council adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
The Judicial Council finds and determines that (1) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to acceptable levels by implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in these findings; (2) the Judicial Council’s approval of the Project, as proposed, will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-thansignificant level the remaining significant environmental effects.
In light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings for the Project, and the considerations set forth below related to this Project, the Judicial Council chooses to approve the Project because the economic, social, equitable, environmental, and other benefits resulting from the Project substantially outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
The following statements identify the reasons why, in the Judicial Council’s judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings, which are herein incorporated by reference; in the Project itself; and in the record of proceedings, as defined in Section 4 of this document.
Each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval.
The Judicial Council finds that the Project will provide reliable and equitable access to justice, as well as the following economic, social, and environmental benefits. The proposed Project best fulfills the Project objectives in the following manner:
► The proposed Project will provide a new, modern and secure courthouse, replacing operations at three antiquated non-State-owned facilities. Replacing inadequate and obsolete buildings with a new, modern, and secure courthouse will create a safer environment for judges, court personnel, and the general public. The new courthouse will relieve the current space shortfall, increase access to justice and court services, improve security, accessibility and safety, and provide a more functional working environment for judges and court personnel. The new courthouse will adhere to the latest Trial Court Facilities Standards and safety guidelines and create an environment that ensures that judges, court personnel, and the public have access to a facility equipped with modern amenities, advanced security systems, and state-of-the-art technology.
► The proposed Project will replace the Monterey Courthouse, which is rated as a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-154-rated Very-High-Risk seismically deficient building. This rating indicates that the building is at a high risk of sustaining significant damage or collapse in the event of an earthquake. The proposed Project addresses the safety concerns associated with the current building's seismic deficiencies by replacing the Monterey Courthouse with a new facility.
The new courthouse will be designed and constructed to meet modern seismic standards, ensuring the safety and well-being of the public and all building occupants during seismic events. This replacement Packet Page 394
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
26 ensures that court operations can continue uninterrupted even in the face of natural disasters, safeguarding the judicial process and protecting the lives of those utilizing the courthouse. ► The proposed Project will avoid future deferred maintenance expenditures associated with the ongoing use of older facilities. By constructing a new courthouse, the proposed Project vacates three non-state-owned aging facilities and eliminates the need for continued investment in the maintenance and upkeep of these older facilities. The new facility will be built with modern materials and construction techniques, reducing the need for frequent repairs and minimizing long-term maintenance costs. This proactive approach avoids future deferred maintenance expenditures and the possibility of having to undertake a $68 million seismic retrofit and renovation of the Monterey Courthouse, allowing resources to be allocated more effectively towards supporting the core functions of the judiciary and providing improved court services to the public.
► The proposed Project will consolidate case load types and optimize the use of other court facilities within Monterey County. The proposed Project aims to consolidate case load types, bringing together similar types of court operations under one roof. This consolidation allows for more efficient use of resources, streamlines processes, and optimizes the allocation of court facilities within Monterey County. By centralizing family law, probate, and civil operations in the new courthouse, the proposed Project enhances operational efficiency, reduces duplication of services, and improves coordination among court functions. This consolidation also opens up opportunities to repurpose existing court facilities, such as the Salinas Courthouse and the Marina Courthouse, to similarly consolidate court operations or support services within each. By optimizing the use of court facilities, the proposed Project maximizes the available space, reduces operational costs, and enhances the overall effectiveness of the judicial system in serving the community.
Packet Page 395
References
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
27 9. References
This Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations document includes all references used in Chapter 8, “References,” of the DEIR and Chapter 4, “References,” of the FEIR.
Packet Page 396
References
Judicial Council of California
New Fort Ord Courthouse Project
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations AECOM
28 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 397
Packet Page 398
Packet Page 399