ORDINANCE XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SEASIDE
ADOPTING A MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH AB 481 LAW ENFORCEMENT AND STATE AGENCIES: MILITARY EQUIPMENT:
FUNDING, ACQUISITION, AND USE
WHEREAS, On September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, On April 21, 2022, City Council approved the ordinance as a governing body; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481, codified at California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 481 allows the governing body of a city to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed military equipment use policy, attached, is found within Seaside Police Department; and
WHEREAS, the Seaside Police Department Policy 710 meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision (d).
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Seaside City Council hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Packet Page 346
Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City of Seaside City Council for the hereby makes the following findings:
1. The military equipment identified in Seaside Police Policy 710 is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
2. Seaside Police Department Policy 710 will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
3. The military equipment identified in Seaside Police Department Policy 710 is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
SECTION 2. CEQA.
The City Council hereby finds the draft ordinance does not involve the approval of a project because the ordinance and its implementation do not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment or in a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. It is therefore exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. (Pub. Resources Code §21065; CEQA Guidelines §§15357, 15377, 15378).
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following the date of its final passage and adoption at a duly notice public hearing for the second reading of the Packet Page 347
proposed text repeal and text amendments.
SECTION 5. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall, within fifteen (15) days after passage, publish a summary of this Ordinance in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of City Council members voting for and against it.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside held on the ___ day of __________ 2023, and passed to print.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held the ___ day of __________ 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 348
Assembly Bill No. 481
CHAPTER 406
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 30, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment:
funding, acquisition, and use.
Existing law designates the Department of General Services as the agency for the State of California responsible for distribution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requires the department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties as the state agency for the distribution of federal personal surplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agency, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which prevents the local agency from bidding on federal surplus property.
Existing federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property, including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.
This bill would require a law enforcement agency, defined to include specified entities, to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by adoption of a military equipment use policy, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill would require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use policy if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcement agency, as provided, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for approval. The bill would specify these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing
92 Packet Page 349
additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agency’s internet website, and provide a copy of the policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee, as specified. The bill would also require a state agency that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.
This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.
(b) The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c) Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
92 Ch. 406 — 2 —
Packet Page 350
(d) Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service.
SEC. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:
Chapter 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment
7070. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Governing body” means the elected body that oversees a law enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a law enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b) “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1) A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or any campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2) A sheriff’s department.
(3) A district attorney’s office.
(4) A county probation department.
(c) “Military equipment” means the following:
(1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion. (5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, 92 — 3 — Ch. 406
Packet Page 351
or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
(12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
(d) “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a law enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1) A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2) The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment. (3) The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4) The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5) The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6) The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight 92 Ch. 406 — 4 —
Packet Page 352
authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(7) For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and how the law enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(e) “State agency” means the law enforcement division of every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution. (f) “Type” means each item that shares the same manufacturer model number.
7071. (a) (1) A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to engaging in any of the following:
(A) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(B) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(E) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(F) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this paragraph.
(2) No later than May 1, 2022, a law enforcement agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the governing body does not approve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use policy submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body, the law enforcement agency shall cease its use of 92 — 5 — Ch. 406
Packet Page 353
the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section.
(b) In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and make those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(d) (1) The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. (C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance. (2) In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall be made publicly available on the internet website of the relevant law enforcement agency for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e) (1) The governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to this section approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to renew the ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.
Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d). If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications 92 Ch. 406 — 6 —
Packet Page 354
to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
(f) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for law enforcement services, the city shall have the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs.
7072. (a) A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1) A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
(2) A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
(3) The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4) The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5) The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6) If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b) Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and the law enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. 7073. (a) A state agency shall create a military equipment use policy prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2) Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
92 — 7 — Ch. 406
Packet Page 355
(4) Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or another state agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(5) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to this chapter.
(6) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided by this subdivision.
(b) No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy.
(c) A state agency that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the following within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1) Publish the military equipment use policy on the agency’s internet website.
(2) Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee.
7074. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and county. 7075. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:
Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to the acquisition of military equipment further exposes that activity to public scrutiny and enhances public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would 92 Ch. 406 — 8 —
Packet Page 356
result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.
O
92 — 9 — Ch. 406
Packet Page 357
CITY OF SEASIDE
STAFF REPORT
Item No.: 10.B.
TO: City Council
FROM: Greg McDanel, City Manager
BY: Andreas Baer, Senior Engineer
DATE: April 17, 2025
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HARRIS &
ASSOCIATES OF THE CAMPUS TOWN PHASE I DEMOLITION
DESIGN PROJECT (AG 2021-040) ADDING PHASE IB WORK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $215,254.00 TO BE PAID FOR BY THE FORT
ORD REUSE AUTHORITY BONDS
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the amendment of the professional services agreement with Harris & Associates.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1082 approving a development agreement (Agreement) with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC (Developer) for the development of approximately 122 acres of land on the former Fort Ord, a project more commonly known as Campus Town. Pursuant to section 11 of the Agreement, the City is responsible for remediating the property to be free of hazardous materials preparing the site to residential standards at no cost to the Developer. The City is also obligated to deconstruct, demolish and remove buildings, structures and improvements located within the boundaries of the development.
In February 2021 staff solicited a proposal for demolition design and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance support services from Harris & Associates for Phase 1 of the Campus Town development. The Consultant provided a proposal on March 15, 2021 in the amount of $265,295.
The City Council approved Resolution NO. 21-12 awarding a professional services agreement AG2021-040 to Harris and Associates to prepare demolition plans and Packet Page 358
Item No. 10.B. Page 2 of 3
specifications. The design was split into Phase 1A and Phase 1B. Phase 1A design and demolition work has been completed. Phase 1B design was completed including an expanded scope previously considered part of Phase 2. Additional funding were not granted for the expanded Phase 1B scope.
December 5th, 2024 the design was completed for Phase 1B and bids were opened on January 23rd, 2025. The City received a formal bid protest from Brannon Corporation Inc. After review of the bid protest, staff recommended rejecting any and all bids and redesigning the project to include additional scope. Staff believes expanding the scope to include the additional demolition of the same character as already included in Phase 1B will gain the highest economies of scale, and will open up the largest amount of redevelopment land at the lowest price. The additional scope includes work on parcel 031-151-040-000 containing the church north of Colonel Durham St. and parking lots up to the Youth Hostel. Adding this work will reduce the Phase II design work and demolition substantially.The remaining demolition will be building-focused and will include the Youth Hostel, and the group of 8 remaining large three-story concrete building between Gigling Rd., Colonel Durham St. 6th Ave and 7th Ave.
Harris submitted a proposal dated April 4, 2025 in the amount of $215,000 as an amendment to the original Phase 1 Design and Environmental Services agreement. The proposal is a not-to-exceed number based on time and materials such that the City is only invoiced for actual work completed. Staff reviewed the proposal and determined the scope to be in conformance with the requirements of the original contract and the original Request for Proposal (RFP), and that awarding this additional work now will shift the cost from the Phase II demolition work. It is recommended the Council authorize an amendment to the professional services agreement with Harris awarding this additional scope of work. Harris is currently on the City's pre-qualified on-call list for engineering services.
ENVIRONMENTAL
In accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR, Title 14), Chapter 3 “CEQA Guidelines,” Article 20, Section 15378, the proposed action is a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the remediation and demolition activities for the construction of the Campus Town Development are considered a “Project” under CEQA Statute 21065, because the Project is an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is directly undertaken by a public agency and it is supported through assistance from one or more public agencies.
On March 5, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-09 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Campus Town Specific Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The City will implement appropriate mitigation as identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The executed Resolution and MMRP can be found by clicking the following link. Resolution 20-09 and MMRP
Packet Page 359
Item No. 10.B. Page 3 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no fiscal impact to the General Fund. With the sunset of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority in June of 2020, the City received a bond in the amount of $6,555,000 for blight removal within the former Fort Ord. The contract for professional services will be funded from from those funds (Account No. 329-8110-1030), and adequate funding remains to complete both the design and demolition work included in Phase 1B.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. DRAFT Amendment 6_Harris_CT Demo Ph1
Reviewed for Submission to the City Council by:
____________________________________
Greg McDanel, City Manager
Packet Page 360
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEASIDE
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICED AGREEMENT WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES OF THE CAMPUS TOWN PHASE I DEMOLITION DESIGN PROJECT (AG 2021-040) ADDING PHASE IB WORK IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,254 TO BE PAID FOR BY THE FORT ORD REUSE
AUTHORITY BONDS
WHEREAS, On February 6, 2017 the City of Seaside and the Successor Agency entered into a purchase and sale agreement with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture LLC (Developer) for the sale of property (Property) in the former Fort Ord to facilitate the development of the Campus Town Project (Project); and
WHEREAS, On March 19, 2020, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1082 approving a development agreement with the Developer and such ordinance became effective on April 18, 2020; and
WHEREAS, The Property contains numerous buildings and other improvements that are known to contain hazardous materials including but not limited to lead paint and asbestos; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the development agreement, the city is responsible to deliver the Property free of hazardous materials, suitable for development to residential standards and demolish buildings and other improvements; and
WHEREAS, The professional services agreement AG2021-040 was executed with Harris and Associates for design service for Campus Town Phase 1 work funded from the FORA Blight Removal Fund account; and
WHEREAS, The Campus Town Phase 1 demolition work was separated into Phase 1A west of General Jim Moore Blvd which has been completed, and Phase 1B which has not been completed; and
WHEREAS, Campus Town Phase 1B work was bid on January 23rd, 2025 with an expanded scope including some parking lots from Phase 2; and WHEREAS, The City received a bid protest and February 20th, 2025 council approved a resolution to reject all bids and directing staff to rebid the project with additional scope; and WHEREAS, Adding additional work of the same nature will improve economies of scale reducing the per-unit-price cost, make ready the majority of campus town Phase 2 area for redevelopment, and reduce Phase 2 demolition work; and
WHEREAS, On April 4th 2025, Harris and Associated submitted a cost proposal requesting an additional not to exceed $215,000.00 for the additional scope of work associate with rebidding and Packet Page 361
expanding the demolition area including in their proposal project management, environmental surveys and mitigations measures, bid documents, bid support, and construction support; and WHEREAS, the professional services agreement will be funded from the FORA Blight Removal Fund account 329-8110-1030 where there are sufficient funds; and WHEREAS, In accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR, Title 14), Chapter 3 “CEQA Guidelines,” Article 20, Section 15378, the proposed action is a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Specifically, the remediation and demolition activities for the construction of the Campus Town Development are considered a “Project” under CEQA Statute 21065, because the Project is an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and is directly undertaken by a public agency and it is supported through assistance from one or more public agencies; and
WHEREAS, On March 5, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 20-09 certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Campus Town Specific Plan and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The City will implement appropriate mitigation as identified in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Seaside hereby authorizes amendment of the professional serviced agreement with Harris & Associates of the Campus Town Phase 1 demolition design project (ag 2021-040) adding Phase 1B work in the amount of $215,254 to be paid for by the Fort Ord Reuse Authority bonds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Seaside duly held on the 17th day of April 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
______________________________
Ian N Oglesby, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Dominique Davis, City Clerk
Packet Page 362
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #6
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Seaside
Date: April 7, 2025 Change Requested by: _ X_ City __ _ Consultant Contract Date Project Name
April 13, 2021 Campus Town Phase 1 Demolition Design – AG 21-40 To (Consultant): Harris & Associates, 450 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103, Salinas, CA 93901 You are directed to make the following changes to the Contract Documents or amend the following described work not included in the contract documents for this project.
The purpose of this addendum is to provide additional professional services related to the project named above. The contract terms and conditions shall not be modified except for as stated herein.
The Campus Town Phase 1 Demolition Design (AG 21-040) shall be expanded to cover all Campus Town demolition work required west of 6th Avenue except the Hostel, 6th Avenue Studios, their immediate parking lots, and entryways, and select areas around the Army inholdings to be defined later. All work shall be in accordance with the Harris and Associated proposal dated April 4th, 2025 (Attachment 1). The proposal will be charged on a time and materials (T&M) basis not to exceed budget amount as follows Task 1.0 – Project Management: $15,586.00
Task 2.0 – Preliminary Investigations, Environmental Support and Mitigation Measures: $27,570.00 Task 3.0 – Issued-For-Construction (IFC) Submittal Plan Set: $58,720.00 Task 4.0 – Bidding Support: $30,004.00
Task 5.0 – Support During Construction: $83,375.00
TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $215,254.00
Original Contract
Amount
Previous CCO Total (Not
including this
Amendment)
This
Amendment
Total
Revised Contract
Amount
$265,295.00 $210,600.00 $215,000.00 $690,895.00
Original Contract
Time
Original Completion Date
Months to Add
(Including This
Amendment)
Revised Completion
Date
14 Months June 30, 2022 48 June 30, 2026
SUBMITTED BY:
Thomas Korman
PW Director / City Engineer
Signature Name and Title Date
CITY APPROVAL BY:
Greg McDanel
City Manager
Signature Name and Title Date
Packet Page 363
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #6
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Seaside
CONSULTANT
ACCEPTANCE BY:
Jason Caprio, PE, PMP
Director, Water Market, Southern
California
Signature Name and Title Date
Packet Page 364
450 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103, Salinas, CA 93901 ◼ (831) 789-8670 ◼ www.WeAreHarris.com April 4, 2025
Mr. Andreas Baer, PE
Assistant Public Works Director
City of Seaside
440 Harcourt Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
AMENDMENT #6 PROPOSAL FOR CAMPUS TOWN PHASE I
DEMOLITION DESIGN (AG 21-40) – FINAL DESIGN, BID, RE-BID, AND CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE PHASE 1B
DEMOLITION PROJECT
Dear Mr. Baer:
As initially discussed on December 12, 2024, please accept this Proposal for Amendment #6 to the Campus Town Phase 1 Demolition Design Project (Contract No. AG 21-40). This amendment covers services related to the 'Phase 1B' scope, including design revisions, environmental mitigation monitoring, bid-phase support for both the initial bid and re-bid, and engineering support during construction.
The following outlines our understanding and proposed Scope of Services along with the associated fees.
Assumptions and exclusions related to the Scope of Services are listed below for clarity.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City of Seaside (“the City”) has entered into a “Purchase and Sale Agreement” with KB Bakewell Seaside Venture II, LLC (“KB-Bakewell”) to sell the former Fort Ord Military Reservation consisting of the “26 Acre Parcels” and the “Surplus II” properties (collectively called “the Property”) to KB-Bakewell. The City has also entered into a “Development Agreement” with KB-Bakewell that outlines the intended planned development called “Campus Town”. As part of the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the City is required to demolish, and remove all buildings, structures, and improvements, and select vegetation on the subject Property. The City has retained Harris & Associates for professional engineering and environmental services to support the Demolition Project.
The demolition work required by the City, as outlined in the agreements, consists contractually of two phases; however, portions of the demolition sites have been subdivided into additional sub-phases. The "Phase 1A" demolition project, which included the Visitor Center site, has been completed. The next phase, "Phase 1B," was designed and bid out in January 2025 to include the demolition of the following sites: the Fire Station site, the Abandoned Fast Food Restaurant site, Parking Lot 'A,' and select portions of the Surplus II area. However, following a bid protest and subsequent cancellation, on March 5, 2025, the City requested that Harris revise the construction contract documents for a re-bid, incorporating additional sites into the demolition scope. These additional sites include the Chapel site, Parking Lot 'B site,' Parking Lots 'C' and 'D,' and the associated areas between them and north of Gigling Road.
Packet Page 365
Harris & Associates, Inc. ◼ Amendment #6 Proposal for Campus Town Phase I Demolition Design (AG 21-40) – Final Design, Bid, Re-Bid, and Construction Support Services for the Phase 1B Demolition Project 2 of 5 This Amendment #6 applies specifically to Phase 1 and covers efforts related to the 'Phase 1B' final design, environmental mitigation monitoring, initial bid, redesign, re-bid, and construction-phase services. Upon completion of 'Phase 1B,' the Campus Town Phase 1 Demolition Design (AG 21-40) contract is expected to be complete. Any subsequent demolition or abatement efforts will fall under a separate contract, Campus Town Phase 2 Abatement & Demolition Design.
The Scope of Services below defines the extent of Harris’ professional services necessary to complete the required work and documents specified herein specifically for Amendment #6.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1.0 Project Management1,2
SUB-TASK 1.5 GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This task generally includes working with the City of Seaside, other stakeholders, performing scope management, cost management, schedule management, as-needed internal progress meetings, administrative duties (i.e. coordination, correspondence, invoicing, etc.), and other miscellaneous activities required to execute the Project, but are not clearly listed below.
Task 2.0 Preliminary Investigations, Environmental Support, and Mitigation Measures2
SUB-TASK 2.1 DATA GATHERING, SITE VISITS, AND FIELD REVIEW Harris staff will conduct field investigations to confirm existing site conditions and identify features that will need to be removed, including pavement, concrete hardscape materials, and above-ground evidence of existing utilities.
These investigations are anticipated for the areas requested for inclusion in the re-bid materials, primarily the Chapel, Parking Lot ‘B,’ Parking Lots ‘C’ and ‘D,’ and the associated areas.
SUB-TASK 2.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Harris, in collaboration with their subconsultant Ecosystems West, will implement mitigation measures as outlined in the Campus Town Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifically those identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). These efforts aim to avoid delays or disruptions to demolition activities. Work under this task includes, but is not limited to, conducting surveys for rare plants and sensitive wildlife species such as legless lizards, nesting birds, and bats.
Task 5.0 Issued-for-Construction (IFC) Submittal2
SUB-TASK 5.1 IFC CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
Harris will revise the bid-issued drawings from the canceled January 2025 bid to incorporate the following additional sites within the project extents: the Chapel site, Parking Lot ‘B,’ Parking Lots ‘C’ and ‘D,’ and the associated areas for the re-bid phase. Harris will consider and incorporate any changes that were a result of contractor’s RFIs during the initial bid phase.
This task assumes one round of City review and a single set of revisions to update the drawings accordingly.
SUB-TASK 5.2 IFC TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Harris will update the technical specifications to reflect the revised project scope and updated construction drawings for the re-bid phase.
Packet Page 366
Harris & Associates, Inc. ◼ Amendment #6 Proposal for Campus Town Phase I Demolition Design (AG 21-40) – Final Design, Bid, Re-Bid, and Construction Support Services for the Phase 1B Demolition Project 3 of 5 This includes incorporating the additional sites—Chapel site, Parking Lot ‘B,’ Parking Lots ‘C’ and ‘D,’ and the associated areas—into the specifications, as well as addressing any changes resulting from contractor RFIs received during the previous bid phase. The final technical specifications package will incorporate technical specifications sections related to hazardous materials removal and/or remediations but assumes these will be prepared by Vista Environmental Consulting.
This task assumes one round of City review and a single set of revisions to finalize the specifications accordingly.
SUB-TASK 5.3 FINAL ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST (EOPCC) Harris will update the previous EOPCC to reflect the revised project scope. This includes incorporating lessons learned from unit costs provided in the canceled January 2025 bid and adjusting for new line items associated with the additional demolition sites.
SUB-TASK 5.4 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW (IFC)
Harris will perform Quality Control (QC) reviews of the Project’s formal deliverables to support high-quality technical deliverables as well as compliance with the Scope of Work. Internal checklists and sign-offs by Harris QA/QC team on deliverables is required before final deliverables are issued to the City of Seaside.
SUB-TASK 5.5 REVIEW OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SURVEY REPORT BY VISTA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
Harris will review the Hazardous Materials Survey Report prepared and revised by Vista Environmental Consulting to identify special provisions that should be clarified in the civil demolition plans. Additionally, Harris will incorporate relevant figures, charts, tables, or other materials into the construction contract documents to ensure bidding contractors clearly understand their responsibilities regarding hazardous materials removal and/or remediation.
SUB-TASK 5.8 IFC FRONT-END DOCUMENTS
Harris will update the front-end contract documents to align with the revised project scope for the re-bid phase. This includes incorporating any necessary modifications resulting from City comments, changes in project requirements, and lessons learned from the canceled January 2025 bid. The updated documents will include revised scope of work descriptions, bid forms, and measurement and payment sections to reflect the latest project scope.
This task assumes one round of City review and a single set of revisions to finalize the front-end documents accordingly.
Task 6.0 Bidding Support1
The City shall be responsible for posting the bid documents (Construction Contract Documents) on electronic bid sites and forwarding to building exchanges and any contractors. The City will control the bidding process by conducting a pre-bid meeting, collecting requests for information (RFIs), disseminating the RFI responses, and any addendums.
SUB-TASK 6.1 PRE-BID MEETING
Harris & Associates will participate in and support the Pre-Bid Meeting and Bid Opening for the Phase 1B Project.
SUB-TASK 6.2 BID PHASE ASSISTANCE
Harris will provide support during the bid period by responding to requests for information (RFIs) and providing clarifications on the construction contract documents. Additionally, our fee includes preparation of two (2) addenda for the Construction Contract Documents.
Packet Page 367
Harris & Associates, Inc. ◼ Amendment #6 Proposal for Campus Town Phase I Demolition Design (AG 21-40) – Final Design, Bid, Re-Bid, and Construction Support Services for the Phase 1B Demolition Project 4 of 5 SUB-TASK 6.3 BID EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Harris & Associates will assist with the bid evaluation for the Project. Conformance to the bid documents will be checked, including but not limited to, verifying references, ensuring all forms have been properly executed, and bid schedule properly completed. Harris & Associates will notify the City if there are irregularities and recommendations for awarding the Bid.
Task 7.0 Support During Construction
SUB-TASK 7.1 CONSTRUCTION/MITIGATION MONITORING
This task includes monitoring the Contractor’s implementation of mitigation measures during demolition activities. It also includes follow-up monitoring efforts as outlined in Sub-Task 2.7 to ensure compliance with the Campus Town EIR and MMRP requirements.
SUB-TASK 7.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This task generally includes working with the City, Contractor, other stakeholders, performing scope management, cost management, schedule management, as-needed internal progress meetings, administrative duties (i.e. coordination, correspondence, invoicing, etc.), and other miscellaneous activities required during construction.
SUB-TASK 7.3 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (8)
Harris & Associates will review and respond to RFIs submitted by the Contractor. For purposes of this Amendment, we have estimated eight (8) responses to RFIs.
SUB-TASK 7.4 SUBMITTAL REVIEW (8)
Harris & Associates will review and comment on submittals provided by the Contractor as required by the Construction Contract Documents. For purposes of this Amendment, we have estimated eight (8) submittal reviews.
Re-submittals and/or multiple iterations of poor-quality submittals will require additional efforts and will be discussed with the City.
SUB-TASK 7.8 RECORD DRAWINGS
Harris & Associates will provide Record Drawings based on redlined as-built construction drawings provided by the Contractor following completion of the Phase 1B Demolition Project.
Notes:
1 Total effort includes previous effort for the initial Phase 1B bidding period, as well as the anticipated effort for the re-bid (Phase 1Br1). 2 Design effort assumes revisions to existing Phase 1B Contract Documents, including the incorporation of additional sites (Chapel, Lot B, Lots C and D), with one round of City review and subsequent revisions.
ASSUMPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS
The following are assumptions made for this Proposal:
1) The Work does not include the preparation of materials related to "Hazardous Materials," defined as hazardous or toxic substances, materials, chemicals, or wastes in any form or concentration that are regulated by the United States or any state or local government authority with jurisdiction over the Property.
These services are assumed to be addressed by Vista Environmental Consulting or other consultants. 2) Harris & Associates assumes no responsibility for the work performed and produced exclusively by Vista Environmental Consulting and will incorporate the provided materials as necessary, without interpretation.
Packet Page 368
Harris & Associates, Inc. ◼ Amendment #6 Proposal for Campus Town Phase I Demolition Design (AG 21-40) – Final Design, Bid, Re-Bid, and Construction Support Services for the Phase 1B Demolition Project 5 of 5 3) Assumptions from original Proposal and Agreement remain as written, including subsequent Amendments.
The following are exclusions made for this Proposal, but are not intended to represent an exhaustive list:
1) Sampling, Testing, and Reporting.
2) Scheduling.
3) License(s) and Permit(s).
4) Any and all changes in the Scope of Services not part of this Amendment. 5) Additional and/or optional support services, unless specifically requested and agreed upon in written Amendment.
6) Inspection during construction.
7) Construction management and administration during construction.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Task 5.0 – Issued-for-Construction (IFC) Submittal is assumed to be completed in approximately four (4) weeks.
Task 6.0 – Bidding Support duration is assumed to be approximately six (6) weeks.
Task 7.0 – Support During Construction duration is assumed to be approximately six (6) months.
PROPOSED FEES
The proposed fees for the Scope of Services are shown below and will be provided on a Time and Materials (T&M) basis, not to exceed the budgeted amount.
Task 1.0 – Project Management: $15,586
Task 2.0 – Preliminary Investigations, Environmental Support, and Mitigation Measures: $27,570 Task 5.0 – Issued-for-Construction (IFC) Submittal: $58,720 Task 6.0 – Bidding Support: $30,004
Task 7.0 – Support During Construction: $83,375
Total Proposed Fee for Amendment #6: $215,254
Sincerely,
Harris & Associates, Inc.
Jason Caprio, PE, PMP Jean-Luc Delbecq, PE
Director, Water Market, Southern California Project Manager [email protected] [email protected] Packet Page 369
Principal-inCharge / Sr.
Director
Project
Manager II
Senior
Engineer II
Engineer III Engineer I Biologist IV
Technical
Support
EcoSystems
West
Mark-Up
Other Direct
Costs (ODCs)
$310 $230 $220 $160 $140 $160 $110 10%
Task 1.0 Project Management1,2
Sub-Task 1.5 General Project Management 16 40 8 $ 15,280 $ - $ - $ - $ 306 $ 15,586 Subtotal Hours = 16 40 0 0 8 0 0
Subtotal ($) = $ 4,960 $ 9,200 $ - $ - $ 1,120 $ - $ - $ 15,280 $ - $ - $ - $ 306 $ 15,586 Task 2.0 Preliminary Investigations, Environmental Support, and Mitigation Measures2 Sub-Task 2.1 Data Gathering, Site Visits, and Field Review 2 12 2,380 $ - $ - $ - $ 250 $ 2,630 $ Sub-Task 2.7 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 2 24 4,920 $ 18,200 $ 18,200 $ 1,820 $ - $ 24,940 $ Subtotal Hours = 2 4 0 12 0 24 0
Subtotal ($) = $ 620 $ 920 $ - $ 1,920 $ - $ 3,840 $ - $ 7,300 $ 18,200 $ 18,200 $ 1,820 $ 250 $ 27,570 Task 5.0 Issued-for-Construction (IFC) Submittal2
Sub-task 5.1 IFC Construction Drawings 4 20 20 120 $ 27,040 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 27,040 Sub-task 5.2 IFC Technical Specifications 2 24 16 16 $ 10,140 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,140 Sub-task 5.3 Final Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (EOPCC) 8 8 24 $ 6,960 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,960 Sub-task 5.4 Quality Control Review (IFC) 20 4 $ 7,120 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7,120 Sub-task 5.5 Review of Hazardous Materials Survey Report by Vista Environmental Consulting 2 2 $ 900 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 900 Sub-task 5.8 IFC Front-End Documents 16 8 16 $ 6,560 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,560 Subtotal Hours = 26 74 30 0 168 0 32
Subtotal ($) = $ 8,060 $ 17,020 $ 6,600 $ - $ 23,520 $ - $ 3,520 $ 58,720 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 58,720 Task 6.0 Bidding Support1
Sub-task 6.1 Pre-Bid Meeting 16 4 10 $ 5,840 $ 1,240 $ 1,240 $ 124 $ 2,000 $ 9,204 Sub-task 6.2 Bid Assistance 40 20 24 $ 16,960 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 16,960 Sub-task 6.3 Bid Evaluation and Recommendation 8 4 8 $ 3,840 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 3,840 Subtotal Hours = 0 64 24 0 36 10 0
Subtotal ($) = $ - $ 14,720 $ 5,280 $ - $ 5,040 $ 1,600 $ - $ 26,640 $ 1,240 $ 1,240 $ 124 $ 2,000 $ 30,004 Task 7.0 Support During Construction
Sub-task 7.1 Contractor Mitigation Monitoring 72 $ 11,520 $ 12,600 $ 12,600 $ 1,260 $ 230 $ 25,610 Sub-task 7.2 Project Management 16 60 $ 18,760 $ - $ - $ - $ 375 $ 19,135 Sub-task 7.3 Responses to Requests for Information (RFIs) (8) 4 8 32 $ 10,120 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,120 Sub-task 7.4 Submittal Reviews (8) 4 8 16 32 $ 11,720 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,720 Sub-task 7.8 Record Drawings 2 8 8 24 60 $ 16,460 $ - $ - $ - $ 329 $ 16,789 Subtotal Hours = 26 84 56 56 60 72 0
Subtotal ($) = $ 8,060 $ 19,320 $ 12,320 $ 8,960 $ 8,400 $ 11,520 $ - $ 68,580 $ 12,600 $ 12,600 $ 1,260 $ 935 $ 83,375 70 266 110 68 272 106 32 924
$ 21,700 $ 61,180 $ 24,200 $ 10,880 $ 38,080 $ 16,960 $ 3,520 $176,520 $32,040 $32,040 $3,204 $3,490 $ 215,254
7.58% 28.79% 11.90% 7.36% 29.44% 11.47% 3.46% 82.01% 14.88% 14.88% 1.49% 1.62% $ 215,254
Notes:
Total ($) by Classification =
2) Design effort assumes revisions to existing Phase 1B Contract Documents, including the incorporation of additional sites (Chapel, Lot B, Lots C and D), with one round of City review and subsequent revisions. 1) Total effort includes previous effort for the initial Phase 1B bidding period, as well as the anticipated effort for the re-bid (Phase 1Br1).
Percentage of Time Allocated (by hours) =
EXHIBIT A - FEE PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT #6 FOR CAMPUS TOWN PHASE 1 DEMOLITION DESIGN (AG 21-40) FOR PHASE 1B DEMOLITION (Rev. 2) Fee Subtotals
(Aggregate)
Total Fee
Harris &
Associates
Total
Partners
Total
Scope of Work's Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
Task/Subtask
Total Hours by Classification =
Amendment #6 Fee Proposal for Phase I (AG-21-40) 2025-04-04.xlsx Packet Page 370