Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 07142025     A G E N D A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, July 14, 2025 ~ 7:00 PM City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California LISA LANDAU MAYOR Third District NATHAN STEELE MAYOR PRO TEM Fifth District   JOE KALMICK COUNCIL MEMBER First District                                                           BEN WONG COUNCIL MEMBER Second District     PATTY SENECAL COUNCIL MEMBER Fourth District     This  Agenda  contains  a  brief  general  description  of  each  item  to  be  considered. No  action  or discussion shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda, except as otherwise provided by law. Supporting documents, including agenda staff reports, and any public writings distributed by the City to at least a majority of the Council Members regarding any item on this agenda are available on the City’s website at www.sealbeachca.gov.   City  Council  meetings  are  broadcast  live  on  Seal  Beach  TV-3  and  on  the  City's  website (www.sealbeachca.gov). Check  SBTV-3  schedule  for  the  rebroadcast  of  meetings.  The meetings are also available on demand on the City’s website (starting 2012).   In  compliance  with  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  of  1990, if  you  require  disability  related modifications  or accommodations, including  auxiliary  aids  or  services  to  attend  or  participate  in  the City  Council  meeting, please  call  the  City  Clerk's  office  at  (562) 431-2527  at  least 48 hours prior to the meeting. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COUNCIL ROLL CALL PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS •Marine Safety Life Saving Awards ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time members of the public may address the Council regarding any items  within the  subject  matter  jurisdiction  of  the  City  Council. Pursuant  to  the  Brown  Act, the Council  cannot  discuss  or  take  action  on  any  items  not  on  the  agenda  unless authorized  by  law. Matters  not  on  the  agenda  may, at  the  Council's  discretion, be referred to the City Manager and placed on a future agenda.   Those  members  of  the  public  wishing  to  speak  are  asked  to  come  forward  to  the microphone and state their name  for the record. All speakers will be limited to  a period of five (5) minutes. Speakers must address their comments only to the Mayor and entire City Council, and not to any individual, member of the staff or audience. Any documents for  review  should  be  presented  to  the  City  Clerk  for  distribution. Speaker  cards  will  be available  at  the  Clerk’s  desk  for  those  wishing  to  sign  up  to  address  the  Council, although  the  submission  of  a  speaker  card  is  not  required  in  order  to  address  the Council. Emailed Comment from Ken Seiff Emailed Comment from Council Member Wong Public Comment from Matthew Terry Emailed Comment from JO8N APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS ORDINANCES By  motion  of the  City  Council  this  is  the time  to notify  the public of  any  changes  to the agenda and /or rearrange the order of the agenda. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney    CITY MANAGER REPORT Patrick Gallegos, City Manager    COUNCIL COMMENTS General Council Member comments and reporting pursuant to AB 1234. COUNCIL ITEMS – None CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by a single motion with the exception of items removed by Council Members. A.Approval of the City Council Minutes - That  the  City  Council  approve  the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on June 23, 2025.   B.Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2026) - Ratification.   C.Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Development of an Environmental Impact Report - That  the  City  Council adopt  Resolution  7667: 1. Approving  Amendment  2  to  the  Professional Services Agreement  with  Psomas to  approve an increase  in  compensation  of $18,080  for  continued  professional  environmental  consulting  services  for  a revised total not-to-exceed  amount of $256,473, and a 12-month extension to expire  on  June  30, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing  the  City  Manager, or  their designee, to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City.   ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING D.Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing – Water Rate and Sewer Rate Adjustments - 1. That  the  City  Council  conduct  a  public  hearing  to  accept comments  on  the  proposed  water  and  sewer  rate  adjustments; and, 2. Upon the  conclusion  of  the  public  hearing, that  the  City  Council  adopt  Resolution 7668  responding  to  timely  filed  written  objections  to  the  proposed  water  and sewer rates pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 2257; and, 3. Upon the  conclusion  of  the  public  hearing, provided  a  majority  protest  against  the proposed  water rates does not  exist, that  City  Council adopt Resolution  7669 establishing  the  water  rates, effective  August  1, 2025; and, 4. Upon  the conclusion  of  the  public  hearing, provided  a  majority  protest  against  the proposed sewer rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7670 establishing the sewer rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 5. Receive and file the  Water  and  Wastewater  Financial  Plan  and  Rate  Study, prepared  by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., dated June 17, 2025, as presented to  the City Council at this meeting and on file in the office of the City Clerk.   UNFINISHED / CONTINUED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS – None ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the City Council to Monday, July 28, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. CITY COUNCIL NORMS:                               Adopted on June 12, 2023 •Maintain a citywide perspective, while being mindful of our districts. •Move from I to we, and from campaigning to governing. •Work together as a body, modeling teamwork and civility for our community. •Assume good intent. •Disagree agreeably and professionally.  •Utilize long range plans to provide big picture context that is realistic and achievable. •Stay focused on the topic at hand.  Ensure each member of Council has an opportunity to speak. •Demonstrate respect, consideration, and courtesy to all. •Share information and avoid surprises. •Keep confidential things confidential. •Respect the Council/Manager form of government and the roles of each party. •Communicate concerns about staff to the City Manager; do not criticize staff in public.                                                                                          CIVILITY PRINCIPLES: Treat everyone courteously; Listen to others respectfully; Exercise self-control;  Give open-minded consideration to all viewpoints;  Focus on the issues and avoid personalizing debate; and, Embrace respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights, inherent components of an inclusive public process, and tools for forging sound decisions.  FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/X                                          @CITYOFSEALBEACH                                                             @CITYOFSEALBEACHCA                                    @SEALBEACHCITYCA @SEALBEACHRECREATION&COMMUNITYSERVICES       @SEALBEACH_LIFEGUARD @SEALBEACHPOLICEDEPARTMENT                                    @SEALBEACHPOLICE                                                                                                   @SEALBEACHPUBLICWORKS                                                                                                   @K9YOSA                                                                                                   @K9.SAURUS   1 Brandon DeCriscio From:Seiff, Kenneth <kseiff@hs.uci.edu> Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:00 AM To:Gloria Harper Cc:Brandon DeCriscio Subject:Communication to Seal Beach City Council, 7/14/25 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged (Sending email communication to City Council via City Clerk Office regarding meeting 7/14/25 if acceptable by the time deadline for submission of comments; with much appreciation to the City Clerk Office) To Honorable Seal Beach City Council-- It has come to my attention over the weekend, if in fact accurate, that the City Council Member for my District 2, Ben Wong, will apparently not be attending the meeting for Monday, 7/14/25 at which time the Public Hearing regarding Water/Sewer Rate issues is scheduled. It is my belief that ALL City Council Members should optimally be present for any routinely scheduled Public Hearings and/or actual Votes on such an important topic for our City of Seal Beach if at all possible and certainly hope such could be re-scheduled when my own representative on the Council would be present to listen and engage with Public Comment at a formal Public Hearing and/or any vote on such a key major issue of great impact. 2 Given the above and if in fact Council Member Wong has known notified absence for the meeting, I am most respectfully requesting the Council might in good faith POSTPONE the formal Public Hearing on this issue for rescheduling when all Council Members would be scheduled for attendance as best able to be known routinely. I have noted there is precedent for cancellation and postponement of scheduled issues and meetings in the past in particular situations and when not urgent. Thank you for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter and your efforts for our City. Sincerely—Ken Ken Seiff 121 Yale Lane Seal Beach (College Park West) 1 Gloria Harper From:Ben Wong Sent:Sunday, July 13, 2025 11:17 PM To:Patrick Gallegos; Gloria Harper; Nicholas R. Ghirelli Subject:Defer Final Decision to Monday 07/28/25 - Water & Sewer Rate Adjustment To the Council: I am writing to formally request that Council defer the final decision regarding the proposed water & sewer rate adjustment to Monday, 07/28/25. Unfortunately, I will neither be physically present to attend tonight's 07/14/25 meeting nor able to attend via teleconference to cast my vote due to the risk of a Brown Act violation. The proposed water & sewer rate adjustment is an important decision that will directly affect each resident of Seal Beach and deserves participation from a full 5-member Council. If the Council will make a motion and vote to accept the deferral, then we can reconvene to make a final decision together. Thank you each for your consideration. Ben Ben Wong City of Seal Beach - Council Member District 2 - Leisure World, College Park West, Rossmoor Center bwong@sealbeachca.gov | (562) 431-2527, x1502 | (714) 655-4415 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 View our: Shoreline Recreation Brochure Our new permitting software is live! Apply for planning, building, public works, and special event permits and track your application here. Seal Beach follows Civility Principles by promoting courtesy, respectful listening, open mindedness, issue-focused debate, and embracing respectful disagreement and dissent as democratic rights and tools for sound decisions. For Information about Seal Beach, please see our City website: www.sealbeachca.gov NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $100 $167 $167 $167 $167 $167 $167 Naval Weapons Station $11,370 ~$11,370 (Naval Weapons Station) / $149.32 (1 Home) = 77 Homes 77 Homes x 25 Linear Feet = 1,925 Linear Feet ~47,520 Linear Feet (9ish Miles) Naval Weapons Station The average Seal Beach resident pays 25 times more in fixed costs than the Naval Weapons Station when factoring in the amount of space they both occupy along the system FY 2023 Bimonthly Naval Weapons Station Bill: ~$53,000 Average Seal Beach Resident Bill: $338.70 ~$53,000 / $338.70 = 157 Homes 157 x 25 Feet = 3,925 Feet 3,925 Feet 6.7 Miles / 3,925 Feet = ~9 ~$53,000 x 9 = $477,000 1 Brandon DeCriscio From:JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> Sent:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:05 AM To:Lisa Landau; Nathan Steele; Joe Kalmick; Ben Wong; Patty Senecal; Patrick Gallegos; Michael Henderson; nghirelli@rwglaw.com; Gloria Harper; Brandon DeCriscio; Karen Pickering; Ask City Hall; budget; info@sealbeachchamber.org; Joe Bailey; Alexa Smittle; Barbara Arenado; Iris Lee; Tim Kelsey; Shaun Temple; Deb Machen; Anthony Nguyen; Nicholas Nicholas; Mike Ezroj; Julia Clasby; ctuchalski@bestversionmedia.com; editor2 @sunnews.org; cpenaorg@gmail.com; Brian Gray; Nick Bolin; hr@sealbeachca.gov; Megan Coats; Jessica Salvador; Chris Hendrix; sealbeachcityrotary@gmail.com; info@bestversionmedia.com Subject:Public Comment Part 2 - Big Picture Sensemaking Agenda - Seal Beach City Coucil Meeting 7/14/25 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged “Real-time opportunities for the public to address the board are required” - Even Though AB 2449 Is Addressing Teleconferencing, “Real-time” Applies To In Person Attendance As Well. https://www.rwglaw.com/media/publication/102_Nick%20-%20CSDA%20Article%20AB%202449.pdf Is There An Up To Date Attorney Contract With Hourly Rate Available? Regardless, I Think It Should Be Re- negotiated To Include Additional Extra Hours Free Of Charge To Exclusively Pursue Creative Legal Frameworks Given Public AI Legal Tools To Roughly Sketch And The Uniquely Local Opportunities The City Can Provide (Regulatory Innovation, Adaptive Governance, Municipal Entrepreneurship, Legal Entrepreneurship, Home-Rule Experimentation, Regulatory Sandboxing, Collaborative Lawmaking, Strategic Preemption Navigation, Outcome-Based Regulation, Interjurisdictional Micro-Grants, Etc.). Is The Contract With The Firm, Not The Specific Attorney? If So, I Think The City Should Also Pursue These Creative Legal Frameworks With Access To The Entire Firm’s Staff. https://www.sealbeachca.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Human%20Resources/Labor%20Agreements/City %20Attorney%20Contract.pdf?ver=2020-06-12-080752-477 We don't know what's happening with forests: ESA Imaging Satellite https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfqvsVgtThQ https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Space_for_our_climate/ESA_unveils_longest- ever_dataset_on_forest_biomass How Water Makes This Town Flood-Proof | WSJ Pro Perfected https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mv_IiESpyY What is Going on with California’s Water!? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVaQiEkSkFY Could Puquios/Qanat be used in our modern water systems? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puquios 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat Is there any risk of saltwater intrusion into our well, as over pumping in northern california has caused? 2 https://cawaterlibrary.net/document/increasing-threat-of-coastal-groundwater-hazards-from-sea-level- rise-in-california/ Sage Pressure Geothermal Energy - Able To Use Old Oil Wells Like In Seal Beach? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4gLxHTqdX4 Fervo Energy Announces Technology Breakthrough in Next-Generation Geothermal 2023 https://fervoenergy.com/fervo-energy-announces-technology-breakthrough-in-next-generation- geothermal/ Panthalassa Ocean-2, a full-scale prototype deployed off the Washington coast scalable to Terrawatts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7Pmgq2JKbI 2025: The end of our world as we know it | Peter Leyden (I agree with the premise, but i disagree with his conclusion; I think its financial capitalism —> universal basic income fixing time poverty for government participation creating more fair capitalism; representative democracy —> direct liquid democracy with no one getting to write their name on the ballot decreasing power of parties/political action commitees; and nation states —> global psychedelic religions forming a global first amendment, which the state must submit to, Under GOD) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoCpFfOH04 Our City Council Should Be Voting To Make Political Proclamations With All 5 In Agreement Like: Massive, thousand-page omnibus appropriations bills from Democrats And Republicans undermine transparency by denying both members and the public adequate time to review each provision—and to understand how special-interest PAC funding or donor commitments may have shaped them (GovExec). Critics note that this “broken” process, in which Congress bundles dozens of unrelated measures into a single package, precludes meaningful public input and masks the true costs and influences behind each policy choice (Manhattan Institute). https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/05/top-democrats-congress-decry-white-house-lack- transparency-spending-plans/405643/ https://manhattan.institute/article/the-omnibus-spending-bill-is-symptomatic-of-a-broken-congress How "Non-Profits" Are Scamming America -501c3 501c4 527 PAC, NGOs Lose 5% To Fraud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmvQcq0yP0 Foreign Agents Registration Act https://www.justice.gov/nsd-fara Rep. Massie Introduces Legislation Requiring Political Candidates to Disclose Dual Citizenship https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395713 Nuclear Information Project with the Federation of American Scientists in Washington, DC On Israel; stockpile of roughly 90 warheads ; not part of the Non Proliferation Treaty and does not undergo UN inspection???????? https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-01/nuclear-notebook-israeli-nuclear-weapons-2022/ Departments Should Be More Integrated Rather Than Fighting For Budget - Polymaths - I Propose once a week/month (day can be voted on), department to department trade of staff members - (pay is the same for the staff members, and in any emergency, everyone goes back to their rightful place); also, a once a 3 month where department heads bring up one problem/innovation they are stuck/interested in, and the other department heads have to give their opinions through the perspective of that specific department head as if it is a debate and they are for it and the specific department head must act as if they are against it https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20191118-what-shapes-a-polymath---and-do-we-need-them- more-than-ever UNODC World Drug Report 2025: Global instability compounding social,
economic and security costs of the world drug problem https://www.unodc.org/unodc/press/releases/2025/June/unodc-world-drug-report-2025_-global- instability-compounding-social--economic-and-security-costs-of-the-world-drug-problem.html Typo Pg 19 https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR_2025/WDR25_B1_Key_findings.pdf World Drug Report 2025 https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/world-drug-report-2025.html Overprescribed Youth “ADHD Treatment” In The United States Is A Gateway To Methamphetamine/Amphetamine/Cocaine IMO https://www.adhdadvisor.org/learn/adhd-statistics-and-facts https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7213a1.htm The Crumbling Business of Marijuana - (Seal Beach Sun Grown On Kizh/Tongva/Gabrielino Land With Locals/Natives, Only City Tax No State/Federal Ever, Limited Designated Smoking/Consumption Cafe Locations, And Consumption Laws Equal To Alcohol In Restaurants —> Native/Locally Grown Entheogens With Veteran/Active Duty Therapy For Naval Weapons Station, End Of Life Palliative Care For Leisure World, And Working With Cal State Long Beach Researchers) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQ7mk13xew Programming Using AI https://v0.dev/ Erebor Crypto Bank - USD Stablecoin for Seal Beach City overseen by Seal Beach Police creating unmatched security with biometric confirmation only to be usable for shopping locally, especially secure for vulnerable Leisure World residents —> have ownership of all local data storage able to be leveraged —> using same underlying technology, have separate local resident political system to eventually have direct liquid democracy https://www.reuters.com/business/tech-billionaires-led-by-palmer-luckey-launch-new-bank-rival-svb- ft-reports-2025-07-02/ building on social media sites is on rented land vs building on email/city website is on land you own —> same goes for data storage An open source, off-grid, decentralized, mesh network built to run on affordable, low-power devices (Uses bluetooth I believe; possible use in emergencies?) https://meshtastic.org/ Harvard Professor Explains The Rules of Writing — Steven Pinker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBQPnvmaNcE 4 Money Did Not Come From Barter - It Came From Blood Feuds- L. Randall Wray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-D5FERQzU4 Why Mushrooms are Starting to Replace Some Things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI2LC3WTryw ‘Too Much Going On’: Autistic Adults Overwhelmed by Nonverbal Social Cues https://drexel.edu/news/archive/2025/July/Autistic-Adults-Overwhelmed-by-Nonverbal-Social-Cues JO8N On Monday, July 14th, 2025 at 2:49 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: Dear GOD: I Write To Notify The Seal Beach People Of Multiple Serious Legal Violations Committed By Attorney And Police During Multiple Seal Beach City Council Meetings, And To Demand Immediate Remedial Action. My Claims Are Fully Documented By Audio/Video Recordings, Public Eyewitnesses, And Written Correspondence. I Request A Written Response Immediately From The Date Of This Letter, As You Have Ignored All My Previous Email Requests For Response, In Denial Of THE SPIRIT. I. Constitutional Violations – Police Intimidation And Chilling Of Free Speech 1. Police Intimidation Violating My 1st Amendment Right By Chilling Free Speech At Public Assemblies Repeatedly Due To Viewpoint Discrimination Before/During My Public Comments Has Been Taking Place For Years: (A) Directing An Officer To Use A Police Dog To Specifically Target My Person/Belongings/Scent Without A Warrant Or Reasonable Suspicion Of A Crime Additionally Violating My 4th Amendment Right, (B) Directing An Officer To Move Behind The Sight Line Of The Camera To Sit In The Public Audience Exactly When I Gave My Public Comment, (C) Physically Moving Directly Next To My Person In The Public Audience Section Before My Public Comments At Two Separate December Meetings In Order To Add Extra Intimidation During The Pressure Of Much Greater Audience Attendance Than Usual, High Ranking Government Officials’ Attendance, And Holiday Performances, (D) Suggesting/Telling Me Not To Write My Name Down In Order To Be Called Upon To Give My Public Comment. 2. Such Targeted, Repeated Shows Of Force In Plain View Of Camera And Attendees Constitute Unlawful First Amendment Retaliation And Intimidation In Violation Of The United States And California Constitutions, Including The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1). II. Brown Act Violations – Disruptive Responses Directly To My Public Comments 1. By Discussing My Public Comment On The Record Without First Placing It On A Publicly Noticed Agenda And Giving Me A Chance To Respond, The Lawyer Engaged In Unauthorized Discussion Of A Non-Agendized Item, A Clear Violation Of Gov. Code § 54954.2. The Disruption Denied The Validity Of My Public Comment Regarding My Church’s Sacramental Use Of The Flesh And Blood Of JESUS CHRIST (Sinfully Scientifically Named Psilocybin Mushrooms)—A Legally Protected Religious Practice—Thereby Engaging In Viewpoint Discrimination In Direct Contravention Of Gov. Code § 54954.3 By Misfeasance In Office (Misusing Lawful Authority), Misrepresentation By Omission (Fraudulent Concealment) Of Material Facts, And Acting Ultra Vires (Beyond Lawful Authority). 5 The Attorney Issued A Blanket Legal Statement Asserting That “Psilocybin Mushrooms”—Referred To By Their Non-Religious, Sinfully Scientific, Secular Name—“Are Illegal In California.” This Statement Was Delivered Without Addressing The Constitutional Protections Afforded To My Religious Practice, And Was Made In Direct Response To My Public Comment Of Religious Liberty Concerning The Flesh And Blood Of JESUS CHRIST. This Disruptive, Unlawful Response To My Public Comment Effectively Undermined The Legitimacy Of My Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs And Sacramental Use Of JESUS CHRIST's Flesh And Blood. It Promoted A Preference For Traditional Or Mainstream Interpretations Over Nontraditional Spiritual Practices. It Also Violated The Establishment Clause And Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Which Together Prohibit Government Hostility Toward Minority Religious Practices, Government Endorsement Of One Religious Interpretation Over Another, Interference With Religious Expression In A Public Forum, And The Chilling Of Protected Religious Speech. Furthermore, The Attorney Omitted Critical Legal Context, Implying That My Religious Practice Was Categorically Illegal Under State Law—When In Fact, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) And The Gonzales V. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal (UDV) Supreme Court Decision Provide A Clear And Recognized Pathway For Religious Exemption To Controlled Substance Laws. The UDV Case Affirmed That A Sincere Religious Use Of A Federally Controlled Substance May Not Be Prohibited Without The Government Meeting The Highest Level Of Legal Justification—Known As Strict Scrutiny. The Burden Is On The Government To Show A Compelling Interest And That It Has Chosen The Least Restrictive Means To Advance That Interest. By Failing To Disclose This Legal Framework, The Attorney Not Only Misled The Public, But Also Attempted To Dismiss My Constitutionally Protected Religious Rights Through Misrepresentation And Selective Omission (Fraudulent Concealment). This Public Statement, Issued By A Government Official In A Civic Forum, Not Only Dismissed The Spiritual Framework I Had Explicitly Articulated, But Also Attempted To Reframe My Protected Religious Exercise As A Criminal, Secular Matter—Thus Chilling My Religious Speech, Discrediting The Legitimacy Of My Sacrament, And Reinforcing State Entanglement With Religious Interpretation, Contrary To The Principle Of Government Neutrality In Religious Matters. 2. At The Council’s Request For Additional Information Concerning My Comment, Police Misrepresented The Legality Of Secular Psilocybin Mushrooms In California, Fraudulently Concealing Successful Decriminalization Mandates In The California Cities Of Oakland, Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley, And San Francisco, Thereby Misleading The Council In Breach Of Gov. Code § 54954.2 And § 54954.3, And Committing Ultra Vires (Beyond Lawful Authority) Misfeasance In Office. III. Procedural Rule Making And Ultra Vires Acts Regarding The “Well” 1. The Boundary Of The “Well” Is Neither Defined In State Law Nor Codified In Local Ordinance To My Knowledge; It Is A Purely Procedural Matter For Council Action. Despite Repeated Requests For The Specific Municipal Code Section Authorizing Any Such Boundary, None Exists. 2. Police And Attorney Unilaterally Expanded The Logical And Symmetrical Boundaries Of The “Well” Beyond Any Council-Adopted Rule To Contract The Public Area Unlawfully—An Ultra Vires Act And Clear Misfeasance In Office. Wells Are Round, The Symmetrical City Clerk’s Desk Is Clearly A Public Area With Forms To Fill Out, And Logically There Is Clearly A Public Trashcan Outside The Police Desk That I Never Went Beyond. This Police And Attorney Action Amounts To Abuse Of Process, Misrepresentation Of Law, And Abuse Of Authority. IV. Defamation And Abuse Of Qualified Privilege 1. When I Sought To Speak In Order To Correct The Fraudulent Concealment In The Record (II.2.), I Peacefully Stood Outside The “Well” In A Public Area. After Being Told To Move Because I Was In The “Well”, I Did Not Move, So I Requested A Written Memorandum Of The “Well” Boundaries From The City Municipal Code. Instead, The Attorney Sent Me And Three Other Government Employees A Letter Maliciously Defaming My Character By Falsely Alleging I Was “Intimidating” “Police”, “Disrupting” The City Council Meeting, And Refusing A “Lawful Order”. Because I Was Peacefully 6 Standing In A Clearly Public Area Keeping My Body To Myself Gesturing And Whispering In Active Listening To The City Council Meeting (With No Action By Council To Remove Me Or Claim Disruption), Attempting To Follow The Public Participation Procedure Of An Agendized Discussion Pursuant To The Brown Act To Correct The Fraudulent Concealment In The Record (II.2.), And Refusing An Unlawful Order Not In The City Municipal Code Or Given By City Council, The Entire Attorney Letter Is Illogical Malicious Defamation Designed To Intimidate, Chilling My Free Speech. I Have Not Returned In Person To City Council Since I Do Not Trust The Hostile Environment Created Through Maliciously, Falsely Labeling Me A Person “Intimidating” “Police”. In Addition, As I Was Simultaneously Publicly Criticizing The New Enforcement Of The Daylighting Parking Law Without Painted Curbs, My Free Speech Is Clearly Protected By Gov. Code § 54954.3 (c): The Legislative Body Of A Local Agency Shall Not Prohibit Public Criticism Of The Policies, Procedures, Programs, Or Services Of The Agency, Or Of The Acts Or Omissions Of The Legislative Body. 2. This Written Accusation—Sent To Me And Three Government Employees—Constitutes Libel Per Se, An Abuse Of Qualified Privilege, Intimidation Chilling My Free Speech, Creating A Hostile Environment, And Actual Malice, Causing Harm To My Reputation And Giving Rise To A Defamatory Tort Action Seeking Injunctive Relief. V. Demand For Relief Accordingly, I Hereby Demand That The Seal Beach Government Immediately: 1. Investigate And Correct Any Unlawful Intimidation Tactics Used By Police And Attorney To Chill My Free Speech, Including Blocking My Email Messages To Government Officials And Staff In Late 2024, Cited On The Record Of A City Council Meeting. 2. Retract The Attorney’s Defamatory Allegations In Writing And Issue A Corrective Notice To All Recipients, Cited On The Record Of A City Council Meeting. 3. Provide The Specific Municipal Code Section Describing The “Well” Boundary Or Formally Adopt One Via Council Resolution, Cited On The Record Of A City Council Meeting. 4. Cease And Desist Further Illegal Brown Act Violations, Restore Viewpoint Neutrality Through Correction Of The Record To Include Previously Omitted Information, And Legally Agendize Public Discussion Of The (Sinfully Scientifically Named) Psilocybin Mushroom For Secular Local Decriminalization In Order To Equally Welcome And Respect Everyone’s First Amendment Rights. 5. Implement Training For All Government Officials And Staff Through Reading This Entire Letter, Cited On The Record Of A City Council Meeting. VI. If You Fail To Respond In Writing Immediately Or Refuse To Remedy These Violations, I Will Consider Pursuing All Available Administrative And Judicial Remedies, Including But Not Limited To: 1. Filing A Formal Brown Act Complaint With The County District Attorney And Attorney General. 2. Initiating A Civil Rights Action Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 And The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1) Up To $25,000. 3. Filing A Defamation Lawsuit For Libel Per Se Up To $25,000. 4. Seeking Injunctive Relief, Damages, And Attorney’s Fees. 5. Lastly, I Am Under No Obligation To Prove My Religious Exemption Through Any Man Made Legal Mechanisms Unless And Until I Deem The Matter Ripe. My Exercise Of Faith Exists Prior To And Beyond Civil Authorization, As Declared In The Declaration Of Independence, Protected By The United States Constitution, And Recognized By Legal Precedent. This Is Anchored In The Foundational Principle That Religious Liberty Is An Inalienable Right, Not A Privilege Bestowed Or Regulated At The Discretion Of Any Government. Peace And Love To Everyone That Lives And Works In Seal Beach. 7 Very Truly GOD’s, JO8N On Monday, June 23rd, 2025 at 3:29 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: Psilocybin Mushrooms in Their Natural Habitats - by Paul Stamets https://www.target.com/p/psilocybin-mushrooms-in-their-natural-habitats-by-paul- stamets/-/A-94272297 Waska: the cost of spiritual healing in the Amazon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jG6B0o1QfQ This Deadly Drug Can Also Erase Addiction ‘Virtually Overnight’ | WSJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBz2TTEdFSs Two Videos Above Are Why I Advocate For Locally Grown And Facilitated GOD Given Medicine. Marcus Finnie | The Art of Listening Drum Clinic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oimZ5dzewic The REAL Danger Of The Post WWII Consensus And Is It Too Late? | Jonathan Pageau https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ug88C6Zgcs See the stunning first images from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/06/23/1119129/first-images-vera-c-rubin- observatory/ Why That Scary Statistic Might Not Mean What You Think – Understanding Scientific Risk and Probability in the Media https://caveatscientia.com/2025/04/02/why-that-scary-statistic-might-not-mean-what- you-think-understanding-scientific-risk-and-probability-in-the-media/ Cancers can be detected in the bloodstream three years prior to diagnosis https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/2025/06/cancers- can-be-detected-in-the-bloodstream-three-years-prior-to-diagnosis Students For Sensible Drug Policy - Just Say Know Drug Education https://ssdp.org/our-work/just-say-know/ D.A.R.E. Drug Abuse Resistance Education T.R.U.T.H. Teaching Responsibility Uniting Trusted Healers I'll Let You Know How Its Going With A Lawyer, JO ౱౲౳౴౵౶౷౸౹N On Monday, June 9th, 2025 at 10:53 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: Record High: Study Finds Growing Cannabis Use Among Older Adults (7% Of 9500 = ~665 Residents Of Leisure World May Have Used Cannabis In The Last Month; Assuming A Rough Conservative Guess Of 1/4 Oz Usage Per Month Per Currently 8 Using Resident @ $40 Per Month For Locals = $319,200 And Potential For Deferring Leisure World Water Increase To Cannabis They Are Likely Already Buying That Goes Exclusively To Paying For Water/Sewer (Are Leisure World Residents Even Allowed To Grow Cannabis?); Ability For Cannabis Grower To Negotiate Volumetric Water Rate With Increased Usage For Growing https://www.nyu.edu/about/news- publications/news/2025/june/cannabis-use-older-adults.html Superwood is Here! This Amazing New Material Could Change The World! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4-v3ntYZAs MIT engineers develop a new battery-free solar desalination system, capable of producing up to 5,000 liters of water per day > a solution for remote areas https://ecoinventos.com/nuevo-sistema-de-desalinizacion- solar-sin-baterias-capaz-de-producir-hasta-5000-litros-de- agua-al-dia/ Dietary Sugar Intake and Incident Type 2 Diabetes Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831 325000493 KILL Every Mosquito In Your Whole Yard | GUARANTEED SAFE METHOD For 1 Gallon Mosquito Spray Repellent: (*In this video I made for 4 gallons) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBPWGPmpE40&t=741s The Delivery Drones Are Finally Here https://www.flyzipline.com/
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAh-zCpmERY "It's Happening Now" - The Unstoppable Threat: Inside the Sinaloa Cartel's Unstoppable Submarine War (Ironclad) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3CP0aTETak Dino Mavrookas - Fmr. Navy SEAL (DEVGRU) / CEO of Saronic Technologies | SRS #205 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJsbSC20Gv0 GPS devices, trackers, and other Iridium satellite communicators https://www.iridium.com/product-type/personal- communicators-messengers-trackers/ 9 Please Forward The Following To Dave Min: Psilocybin-assisted treatment for alcohol dependence: a proof-of-concept study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25586396/ Part 1: Korea’s Magic Mushrooms 한국의 환각버섯 https://medium.com/%40Hong_Gildong/part-1-koreas-magic- mushrooms-%ED%95%9C%EA%B5%AD%EC%9D%98- %ED%99%98%EA%B0%81%EB%B2%84%EC%84%AF- b5259491d35d Current situation regarding psychedelics and magic mushroom in Korea https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11862319/ Hong (2021) The Psychoactive Mushrooms of Korea https://www.scribd.com/document/617371685/Hong-2021- The-Psychoactive-Mushrooms-of-Korea Magic mushrooms are woven into the historical and contemporary cultural fabric of Korea. There are many Korean fables regarding the 웃음버섯 (useum beoseot), or laughter mushroom. The famous Korean mycologist 조덕현Dr. Cho Duck-Hyun wrote an excellent paper on the legends of poisonous and magic mushrooms in Korea titled 독버섯의 비밀, or The Secret of Poison Mushrooms. It’s only available in Korean language, but I highly recommend reading it if you can get it translated. You can find it here: http://www.kacn.org/data/story/500403.pdf My favorite account in Dr. Cho’s paper is an ancient story in which nuns at a Korean Buddhist monastery go mushroom hunting in the mountains around the monastery. They combine all their mushrooms into a big pot of soup and become wildly intoxicated after consuming the soup. In contemporary times, magic mushrooms occasionally appear as plot devices in Korean television shows. For example, in one episode of the Korean drama 푸른거탑, or Blue Tower, an army platoon was stricken with uncontrollable laughter and hallucinations after consuming wild “laughter mushrooms.” You can watch the 2-part episode on YouTube: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6KcxYzWT8w Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PeaRDTCcKo 10 (Note: viewers outside Korea might need a VPN linked to Korea to watch the videos) The local Korean names of magic mushrooms often reveal the social attitudes towards these mushrooms from 미치광이버섯속 or “maniac mushroom” for the Gymnopilus genus and 환각버섯속 or “hallucinogen mushroom” for the Psilocybe genus, as well as “laughter mushroom” for some Gymnopilus and Panaeolus species. Despite the cultural significance of magic mushrooms in Korea, international mushroom literature demonstrate a limited knowledge of magic mushrooms native to Korea. Gastón Guzmán’s “A Worldwide Geographical Distribution of Neurotropic Fungi”, which is one of the biggest global reviews of magic mushrooms, only lists four magic mushrooms from Korea and the famous book “Psilocybian Mushrooms of the World” by Paul Stamets makes no mention of Korea. In neighboring Japan, on the other hand, Guzman mentions 28 potential magic mushrooms and Stamets cites 10. Such inconsistencies likely stem from a number of factors, including limited access to or familiarity with Korean sources, and a comparatively larger breadth of relevant Japanese sources. Nevertheless, Korean mycological sources do mention the existence of numerous, potentially magic mushrooms in Korea. In upcoming blogs, I will investigate and review 26 potentially magic mushrooms found in Korea. There is a lot of interesting and exciting information to be shared, and I hope to set the record straight! Are We Going To Have A Proclamation For Every Ethnicity And Religion? JO8N On Monday, May 26th, 2025 at 3:04 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: This Is Your Final Warning. Fear GOD. Legal Action Will Be Considered If The Public Record Is Not Corrected Through These Acknowledgments During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting On 5/27/25: 1. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation To Chill My 1st Amendment Right To Free Speech At Public Assemblies Because Of Viewpoint Discrimination Before/During 11 My Public Comments For Years And Guarantee Of An Immediate End To These Behaviors Or Similar: (A) Directing An Officer To Use A Police Dog To Specifically Target My Person/Belongings/Scent Without A Warrant Or Reasonable Suspicion Of A Crime Additionally Violating My 4th Amendment Right (B) Directing An Officer To Move Behind The Sight Line Of The Camera To Sit In The Public Audience Exactly When I Go Up To Give My Public Comment (C) Physically Moving Directly Next To My Person In The Public Audience Section Before Public Comments At Two Separate December Meetings In Order To Give Me Extra Intimidation During The Pressure Of Greater Audience Attendance Than Usual And Holiday Performances (D) Suggesting/Telling Me Not To Write My Name Down In Order To Be Called Upon To Give My Public Comment 2. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of A Previous Lie By Omission From Seal Beach Police Stating That Psilocybin Mushrooms Are Completely Illegal In California And A Correction Of The Record Stating The Whole Truth That The California Cities Of Oakland, Santa Cruz, Arcata, Berkeley, And San Francisco Have Successfully Mandated Personal Use And Possession Of Certain Psychedelics As The Lowest Law Enforcement Priority. 3. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of The City Attorney's Failure To Recognize At Best And Complicit Encouragement At Worst Of The Ongoing Seal Beach Police Intimidation Specifically Directed At Me, A ~27 Year Resident. 4. I Hereby Request A Public Acknowledgment From The City Attorney Regarding Prior Acts Of Omission And Potential Violations Of My First Amendment Rights. Specifically, These Violations Occurred Immediately After I Publicly Announced The Religious Nature 12 Of My Practice And The Founding Of My Church. Following This Declaration, The City Attorney Issued A Blanket Legal Statement Asserting That Psilocybin Mushrooms—Referred To By Their Non- Religious, Secular Name—Are “Illegal In California.” This Statement Was Delivered Without Addressing The Constitutional Protections Afforded To Religious Practice, And Was Made In Direct Response To My Religious Expression Invoking The Name Of JESUS CHRIST. This Action Effectively Undermined The Legitimacy Of My Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs And Sacramental Use Of JESUS CHRIST's Flesh And Blood. It Promoted A Preference For Traditional Or Mainstream Christian Interpretations Over Nontraditional Or Indigenous Spiritual Practices. It Also Violated The Establishment Clause And Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Which Together Prohibit Government Hostility Toward Minority Religious Practices, Government Endorsement Of One Religious Interpretation Over Another, Interference With Religious Expression In A Public Forum, And The Chilling Of Protected Religious Speech. Furthermore, The City Attorney Omitted Critical Legal Context, Implying That My Religious Practice Was Categorically Illegal Under State Law—When In Fact, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) And The Gonzales V. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal (UDV) Supreme Court Decision Provide A Clear And Recognized Pathway For Religious Exemption To Controlled Substance Laws. The UDV Case Affirmed That A Sincere Religious Use Of A Federally Controlled Substance May Not Be Prohibited Without The Government Meeting The Highest Level Of Legal 13 Justification—Known As Strict Scrutiny. The Burden Is On The Government To Show A Compelling Interest And That It Has Chosen The Least Restrictive Means To Advance That Interest. By Failing To Disclose This Legal Framework, The City Attorney Not Only Misled The Public, But Also Attempted To Dismiss My Constitutionally Protected Religious Rights Through Misrepresentation And Selective Omission. This Public Statement, Issued By A Government Official In A Civic Forum, Not Only Dismissed The Spiritual Framework I Had Explicitly Articulated, But Also Attempted To Reframe My Protected Religious Exercise As A Criminal Matter—Thus Chilling My Religious Speech, Discrediting The Legitimacy Of My Sacrament, And Reinforcing State Entanglement With Religious Interpretation, Contrary To The Principle Of Government Neutrality In Religious Matters. This Act Of Governmental Overreach Echoes The Historical Violation Of Indigenous Religious Freedom On This Land—An Ongoing Legacy Of Cultural Suppression And Spiritual Violation. Lastly, I Assert That I Am Under No Obligation To Prove My Religious Exemption Through Man-Made Legal Mechanisms Unless And Until I Deem The Matter Ripe. My Exercise Of Faith Exists Prior To And Beyond Civil Authorization, As Protected By The Constitution And Recognized By Precedent. This Is Anchored In The Foundational Principle That Religious Liberty Is An Inalienable Right, Not A Privilege Bestowed Or Regulated At The Discretion Of The State. 5. I Request Public Acknowledgment Of Two Separate Brown Act Violations. During (4), The City Attorney Gave A Public Response To My Public Comment Without Agendizing The Item To Give Me A Chance 14 To Respond With The Omitted Information. During (2), The City Mayor Gave A Public Response To My Public Comment In Which Police Were Asked About Psilocybin Mushrooms. This Item Was Not Agendized And I Was Not Given The Chance To Respond With The Omitted Information. Because The Item Was Illegaly Agendized Twice Without A Public Hearing, I Request A Legal Placement On A Future Agenda With A Chance For The Public To Speak. If The Public Record Is Corrected By Acknowledgment Of All 5 Issues, Behaviors Are Promised To Change, And Placement On A Future Agenda Occurs During The Seal Beach City Council Meeting On 5/27/25, I Will Drop All Consideration Of Legal Action With Handshakes Of Forgiveness. 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/19 83 https://steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct- attorney-seal-beach/ https://www.moseleycollins.com/police- misconduct-lawyer-in-seal-beach-ca.html https://pba.memberclicks.net/search-member- directory#/ https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/ https://www.terrapinlegal.com/ https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.aclu.org/ Satan Drives Out Satan All Around Me The I AM Holds Me Together Sin Tempts You With Momentary Peace Division Never Lasts Forever Love Verbatim Word For Word Literally, In The Flesh And Blood Remember Ear Cut By Sword Here Forever, Good Is Evil's Judge 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- If theft is still a problem in the Target shopping center, it might be time to look into employees giving tips/insider theft. Can Amazon's security be consulted to see vulnerabilities in Target shopping center as I believe Amazon uses Palantir? If the water and sewer rates are passed, we need to see recognition of exactly where the funds are going to certain parts of the city - I foresee a situation in the future when other, more recently built parts of the city need new pipes and I want a record of the fact that the more recently built parts of the city helped fund older parts of the city before. 

If that many pills shown in the drug take back are over prescribed by big pharmaceutical companies, how is that not considered racketeering conspiracy with big insurance companies?

 Make an AI Police Lawyer like siri that can be a real time intermediary for police officers and citizens to talk with together in 99% of the time non-violent interaction. In regards to drug enforcement, the best defense is a good offense - right now alcohol is your offense when it should be cannabis - alcohol is a gateway to cocaine/meth/opioids and cannabis is a gateway to psychedelics. Why This Russian Drone Developer Isn’t Impressed by U.S. Tech ([Probably Some Propaganda In There] Fiber Optic Cable Drone Seems Most Applicable For Civilian Police - Better Connection, No Enemy Jamming/Detection, More Battery Because Video Feed Does Not Take As Much Energy; Or Large Mother Drone To Improve Connection/Distance Of Wireless; Starlink Naval Drones; Lasers To Destroy Drones) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2 CbbM 16 Police warn of small cameras camouflaged in yards across the country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQircxHd HQ Experimental drones developed in Chicago area to neutralize mass shooters, disable weapons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiz2GzAEV bg Is This An Organized Crime Syndicate? James Freeman (Local Public Government Is Better Than The Alternative Or Else It Would Create A Vacuum With Less Accountability/Standards/Morality/Etc., But It Is Not The Best - Religion Is) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NaPJKi_M W0 How Police Control the Media (Overly Liberal Video Among Some Overly Republican Videos, But Copaganda Has Obvious Truth In Seal Beach With Terrible Local Journalistic Integrity Regarding My Experience So Far, Unless There Has Been Publicly Published Writing About Cannabis/Psychedelics That I Have Not Seen) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NB0IW8ih S0 Tim Tebow - Fighting For Our Children | SRS #199 Shawn Ryan Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVFs0dVc Cc Notorious Green Beret’s WARNING to Soldiers Coming Home Johnny Glenn Julian Dorey (IMO Adrenaline Addiction Through Constant Survival Competition At War Creates Hyper-vigilance Devoid Of Rest With GOD That Does Not Integrate Into The Marathon Of Life) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0NnjKXZR Fc The Real Threat: Why the U.S. Could Declare War on Chinese Gangs (w/ Former DEA, Ray Donovan) Ironclad 17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKNiaMqf wA Why Other Countries LAUGH at American Homes (Build New Headquarters By The Beach Out Of Concrete/Local Earth Geopolymer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTghEBfZ_D 8 
 Wasp 3D-prints eco-homes from local raw earth for $1K https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MLJs1KRa 0Y In 2018, the team printed their first home in 10 days using local earth (30% clay, 40% silt, 30% sand), 40% chopped rice straw, 25% rice husk, and 10% lime. “Gaia” cost 900 euros (1,000 dollars) in materials for 30 meters of wall. The round-shaped structure relied on a wooden roof and beams for support. Why 3D Printing Buildings Leads to Problems (Modular Prefab Concrete For Non-Unique Building Parts + 3D Printed Concrete For Unique Building Parts Seems Like Sweet Spot) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhAwPFIUF _4 Comment: “I’ve worked closely with a leading concrete 3D printing company for several years now, so I hope my insight into the actual construction process provides some perspective. First, one clarification: There is no gravel aggregate in 3D printing concrete. It is only sand. You're right that the vertical integration is very strong in this industry, but there is already internal pressure to break that up. I expect in 10 years or so, you'll see more open-access tools available to architects and construction companies alike. I can't be too specific and honor my non-disclosure agreements, but there is recognition that the ability for architects to play with shape is very limited for now, which also limits the primary advantage of concrete 3D printing over other methods: complex shapes cost the same as simple ones. The primary 18 reasons IMO for the vertical integration is 1) that there has been a high learning curve for the industry and 2) the business case relies on minimizing labor costs and the strategies for dealing with that are still being prototyped. Normally trivial things like laying foundations, running plumbing, tying roof timbers into the frame, and lintels as you mentioned, are difficult for concrete 3D printed construction. It's only in the last year or so that acceptable, repeatable solutions have been identified for most of these and are finding their way into standard design practices. But even then, there are still maybe 5 or 10 years more of on-the-ground construction needed to establish best practice. It's not too different from the way building materials and building science radically changed in the 1980's, leading to a decade of extremely poorly built houses prone to water damage and short lifespans. It wasn't until maybe 20 years after that best practices for high-quality construction had been standardized. I would push back on the lack of repairability, though. This has always been an issue with concrete construction, and it's likely to become increasingly common for plaster or stucco finishes to be applied to internal walls, allowing for intrusive renovations to be reintegrated. Structural stability is not likely to be an issue since all walls have reinforcement every half meter anyway and often exceed building strength standards by an order of magnitude. Further, virtually all concrete 3D printing for now is slab-on-grade construction, which already has the same repairability issues you mention but is already widely adopted and has best practices for dealing with things like electrical and plumbing repair. I would also point out that the timber frame construction that we love so much is largely an anomaly unique to the U.S. where wood is abundant and cheap. Concrete 3D printed homes have the (so far unrealized) potential of being many decades or centuries more durable than frame buildings, which will change the design requirements that often contribute to design choices that later need renovations and repairs. 19 I would also push back on the criticism of how windows and doors are seated in the concrete homes. I don't doubt that many early concrete 3D printed homes were sealed with silicone only, but 1) the gap between windows and walls is already standard in frame construction and addressed with shims, spray foam, and trim and 2) the 3D printing companies have already started to adopt the same building techniques used by frame construction. Echoing much of what you said, IMO concrete 3D printing has a high potential for unique design that won't be unlocked until architects are given freer access to the tools and pre-fab construction is a necessary companion to this industry, but there is still a lot of building science that is being worked out. There are already some serious advantges, such as all walls having a native R40 insulation rating, but these will be tempered by the inherent limitations. I don't expect to see a rapid adoption of 3D printed construction for another 5 or 10 years and for the U.S. market share to cap around 20% and primarily remain in the residential and light commercial construction spaces. I also think that the current bare-wall aesthetic will fall out of favor out in that timeframe since it will prove difficult to clean. I also expect that environmental costs will remain high as long as cement production relies on fossil fuels and concrete aggregate relies on mined sand. I also expect that a future use case for heavy construction is using 3D printing to create forms for much thicker concrete constructions, particularly for foundations, buttresses, and pillars, such as you see in airport construction.” I Investigated Utah’s DEADLY Soda Addiction… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlNJc_OLb Yw https://playactivate.com/ Increased sedentary behavior is associated with neurodegeneration and worse cognition in older 20 adults over a 7-year period despite high levels of physical activity https://alz- journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100 2/alz.70157 Parkinson's patients who take 'magic mushrooms' see key benefits, study finds https://www.foxnews.com/health/parkinsons- patients-who-take-magic-mushrooms-see-key- benefits-study-finds Trump surgeon general pick praised unproven psychedelic therapy, said mushrooms helped her find love https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/15/health/casey -means-psychedelic-therapy Military Land Is 4,336 Acres Or 60.7% Of Seal Beach... JO8N On Monday, March 31st, 2025 at 6:34 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: On Sunday, March 23rd, 2025 at 4:53 PM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: Dear Lisa, Nathan, Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And Gloria, I am writing to formally express my concerns regarding what I believe to be ongoing violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) during public meetings conducted by Seal Beach’s City Council. The fundamental purpose of the Brown Act is to ensure that the public has the 21 ability to meaningfully participate in local government proceedings, which includes the right to make public comments and receive fair treatment under open meeting laws. Specifically, I wish to address the following concerns: 1. Inability to Respond to False or Misleading Statements: * It has been observed that after I make public comments, members of the council and/or city staff respond to my remarks. However, I am not afforded the opportunity to address their responses within the same meeting, effectively silencing my ability to correct or clarify statements that may be false, misleading, or deceptive by omission. This directly undermines the principle of open and meaningful discourse as envisioned by the Brown Act.
 * The California Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of open and fair discussions in McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 354, where the court emphasized that restricting public input while allowing government officials to comment without challenge is inconsistent with the 22 transparency goals of the Brown Act.
 2. Prohibition on Addressing Staff: * The restrictions placed upon me and other members of the public from directing comments toward city staff—especially when they are the ones providing statements that require public scrutiny—appear to be an unreasonable and arbitrary limitation on public participation. Furthermore, this may give the staff a feeling of false sense of security protecting their statements from legal scrutiny. The Brown Act does not prohibit the public from addressing staff members during public comment, and such restrictions seem inconsistent with its purpose of transparency and accountability.
 * In Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, the court affirmed that public participation is a fundamental aspect of government meetings and should not be unduly restricted, emphasizing the need for fairness in addressing public concerns.
 3. Discussion of Public Comments Without Proper Agenda Notice: * Members of the council have engaged in discussions regarding my public comments without first properly agendizing 23 the topics I address. This practice violates the Brown Act’s requirement that discussions and deliberations on non- agendized items not take place, as it deprives the public of advance notice and the ability to participate fully in the discussion.
 * I am grateful that the city council is listening and willing to speak even momentarily in response to public concerns. However, even an extremely time-limited agendized discussion would add fairness and transparency to misleading statements by staff. By failing to agendize discussions about my comments, the council is creating an imbalance in the exchange of information, which the Brown Act seeks to prevent.
 * Additionally, in my public comments, I am using meta- communication to agendize the process by which we agendize. The term “agendize” itself is a completely made-up word that devalues public discourse and reflects a bureaucratic approach that obstructs meaningful public participation rather than facilitating it. This concern aligns with the ruling in White v. City of Norwalk (1990) 900 F.2d 1421, where the court emphasized that public meetings should foster meaningful 24 participation and that arbitrary restrictions on discourse can infringe upon First Amendment rights. 
 * The word "agendize" does not appear anywhere in the Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.). The law refers to "placing an item on the agenda" or "agenda requirements," but "agendize" is not an official legal term. It is a bureaucratic jargon word that has become commonly used in government settings but lacks formal recognition in the Brown Act itself.
 4. Process for Placing an Item on the Agenda: * The process for placing an item on a city council agenda varies by jurisdiction, but under the Brown Act, it does not require a unanimous decision by the council. Instead, different cities have different policies: * Individual Council Members: Some cities allow one or two council members to request an item be placed on a future agenda. The exact number required depends on the city’s local rules or policies. For example, in Los Angeles, a single council member can introduce a motion to be considered in a future meeting. Similarly, in San Diego, two council members are required 25 to place an item on the docket.
 * Majority Vote: In some cities, adding an item to a future agenda requires a majority vote of the council at a meeting. This process ensures that council members collectively decide whether an issue warrants further discussion. The City of Berkeley, for instance, follows this model, requiring a majority vote to place an item on the agenda.
 * Courts have upheld the importance of agenda-setting transparency. In Preven v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 925, the court ruled that public participation in government decision- making is a core right under the Brown Act, reinforcing that the public and individual council members must be given fair opportunities to introduce topics for discussion.
 These practices create an unfair and unbalanced environment where public voices are effectively suppressed, while city officials retain unrestricted latitude to control discourse without public challenge. Such actions may constitute a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Brown Act. I respectfully request that the city review its meeting procedures and take immediate corrective actions, including: 26 * Allowing public speakers the opportunity to address responses made to their comments within the same meeting.
 * Eliminating any restrictions that prevent members of the public from addressing staff when their statements are at issue.
 * Ensuring that discussions related to public comments follow proper agenda procedures to comply with the Brown Act’s transparency requirements. * Switching to Individual Council Member placing of items on the agenda to emphasize the sanctity of every individual living in Seal Beach
 Failure to address these issues may necessitate further action, including but not limited to submitting a formal complaint to the appropriate oversight agencies and seeking legal remedies to ensure compliance with state law. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and request a written response outlining the steps the city will take to address these concerns. Please respond within 30 days of receipt of this letter. P.S. Still Waiting On That Seal Beach City Legal Document Stating The Boundaries Marking The Well. Your 27 Opinion About Me And My Right To Stand In A Public Area Moving My Body Completely To Myself Is Worthless Without The Written Proof Of The Well Boundary. I Submit The Evidence That You Are Able To Be That Close To Gloria’s City Clerk Area, And In Fact, Encouraged To Be In Order To Pick Up, Fill Out, And Submit Necessary Documents, Including Supplemental Material For Public Comments. My Standing In The Exact Symmetrically Opposite Area Was Supplemental Material For My Public Comment About The Decriminalization Of Psilocybin Mushrooms And The Agenda Item Of Daylighting. Lastly, The Wells I Have Seen Are Round In Shape And Symmetrical Without Parts Hanging Off The Side (To Conveniently Fit Your Narrative) 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an 28 action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. ןמא ןמא ⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂ ၒၓ ࿬࿭࿮ ⯴⯵⯶ ⍾ י ו 8 נ ן Ἰωάνν8ς
 Jo8annes
 JO8N On Tuesday, March 18th, 2025 at 6:11 AM, JO8N <JO8N@proton.me> wrote: Dear Lisa, Nathan , Joe, Ben, Patty, Patrick, Mike H., Nick G., And Gloria, I am writing to 29 formall y request an investig ation into a matter of signific ant public concer n regardi ng potenti al interfer ence with my ability to commu nicate with city officials . Specifi cally, I have reason to believe that my emails to membe rs of the Seal Beach City Council and city staff may have been intentio nally blocke d or filtered by someo 30 ne within city admini stration in the Fall/Wi nter of 2024. As a residen t of Seal Beach, I underst and that I have a right to commu nicate with my elected represe ntative s and city staff regardi ng matters of public interest . Any directiv e or policy that restrict s this commu nicatio n raises serious legal concer ns under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gover 31 nment Code §§ 54950– 54963), the Califor nia Public Record s Act (CPRA ) (Gover nment Code §§ 6250– 6270), and the First Amend ment of the United States Constit ution. The Brown Act ensure s transpa rency and public particip ation in local govern ment. Blockin g my emails to city officials may constit ute an unlawf ul restricti on on my ability to engage 32 in civic matters and access public informa tion. Likewis e, the CPRA mandat es that govern mental commu nicatio ns be open for public scrutin y. If city staff have deliber ately restrict ed my access to commu nicate with officials , it could be an unlawf ul attempt to circum vent public records laws and govern mental accoun tability. Further more, the First Amend ment 33 guarant ees my right to petition the govern ment for redress of grievan ces. Any action taken by city staff to suppre ss my commu nicatio n, particul arly if done based on viewpoi nt discrimi nation, could amount to a constit utional violatio n. Releva nt case law, such as Lindke v. Freed and O'Conn or- Ratcliff v. Garnier , sugges ts that when public officials 34 act in their official capacit y, they must not engage in viewpoi nt- based censor ship, includin g blockin g commu nicatio ns from constit uents. To ensure transpa rency and accoun tability, I respect fully request an internal review and disclos ure of the followin g: 1. Any internal directiv es, policies , or commu nicatio ns instruct ing city staff or IT person 35 nel to block, filter, or otherwi se restrict emails from my email addres s jo8n@ proton. me or any other specific sender s.
 2. A list of email addres ses, domain s, or individu als that have been blocke d from contact ing city officials and staff in the last year.
 3. Any internal discuss ions or justifica tions for implem enting such restricti ons, includin g whethe r such actions were 36 directe d by city officials or staff membe rs.
 4. The criteria and proced ures used by the city’s IT depart ment to filter or block externa l commu nicatio ns.
 If such a policy or directiv e exists, I request an explan ation of its basis, legal justifica tion, and the proces s by which it was implem ented. If no such directiv e exists, I ask that immedi ate steps be 37 taken to ensure my emails are properl y receive d by their intende d recipie nts. I would appreci ate a written respon se within 30 days confirm ing the receipt of this request and outlinin g the next steps in addres sing this matter. If necess ary, I am willing to file a formal Public Record s Act request to obtain relevan t docum entatio n. 38 Thank you for your attentio n to this importa nt issue. I look forward to your prompt respon se and a resoluti on that uphold s public trust and the right to open commu nicatio n with our local govern ment. https://l eginfo.l egislat ure.ca. gov/fac es/cod es_dis playSe ction.x html?la wCode =GOV§ ionNu m=549 50 https://l eginfo.l egislat ure.ca. gov/fac es/billT extClie nt.xhtm l?bill_id =20172 39 0180S B31 https://l eginfo.l egislat ure.ca. gov/fac es/cod es_dis playSe ction.x html?la wCode =CON S§ionN um=SE C.%20 2.&artic le=I ןמא ןמא ⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂ ၒၓ ࿬࿭࿮ ⯴⯵⯶ ⍾ JO8N On Monda y, March 10th, 2025 at 6:44 AM, JO8N <JO8N @prot on.me > wrote: D e a r L i s a , 40 N a t h a n , J o e , B e n , P a t t y , P a t r i c k , M i k e H . , A n d N i c k G . , P 41 o l i c e i n t i m i d a t i o n t h a t c h i l l s f r e e s p e e c h i s w e l l r e c o g 42 n i z e d u n d e r F i r s t A m e n d m e n t j u r i s p r u d e n c e . I n H e a l y v . J 43 a m e s , 4 0 8 U . S . 1 6 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t g o v 44 e r n m e n t a c t i o n t h a t d e t e r s i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m p a r t i c i p a t 45 i n g i n p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e — w h e t h e r t h r o u g h d i r e c t h a r a s s m 46 e n t o r o t h e r f o r m s o f c o e r c i o n — c a n v i o l a t e F i r s t A m e n d m e 47 n t r i g h t s . I n F e i n e r v . N e w Y o r k , 4 1 4 U . S . 6 3 2 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , t h e C 48 o u r t u n d e r s c o r e d t h a t p o l i c e c o n d u c t w h i c h d i s r u p t s o r d 49 e t e r s p o l i t i c a l e x p r e s s i o n , e v e n i f o s t e n s i b l y a i m e d a t 50 m a i n t a i n i n g o r d e r , m u s t n o t i n f r i n g e o n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o 51 n a l r i g h t t o f r e e s p e e c h . M o r e o v e r , W a r d v . R o c k A g a i n s t 52 R a c i s m , 4 9 1 U . S . 7 8 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t a n y r e g u l a t 53 i o n o r e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n m u s t b e c o n t e n t n e u t r a l a n d c a r 54 e f u l l y t a i l o r e d t o a v o i d s u p p r e s s i n g s p e e c h b a s e d s o l e l 55 y o n i t s m e s s a g e . T h e s e c a s e s e s t a b l i s h t h a t i f p o l i c e o f f 56 i c e r s s i n g l e o u t i n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e i r s p e 57 e c h o r f o r t h e t o p i c s t h e y p l a n t o a d d r e s s — s u c h a s a d v o c a t 58 i n g f o r " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m " d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n , R e l i 59 g i o u s F r e e d o m , J e s u s C h r i s t o r d i s c u s s i n g o t h e r p o l i t i c 60 a l l y c h a r g e d i s s u e s — t h e r e s u l t i n g i n t i m i d a t i o n c a n c o n 61 s t i t u t e a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e i n f r i n g e m e n t o n F i r s t A m e n d m e 62 n t p r o t e c t i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , l o w e r c o u r t d e c i s i o n s h 63 a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y f o u n d t h a t l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n s t h a 64 t c r e a t e a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t o n p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r 65 e s u b j e c t t o s t r i c t s c r u t i n y . W h e n o f f i c e r s p o s i t i o n t h e 66 m s e l v e s n e a r a s p e a k e r , n o t t o m a i n t a i n p u b l i c s a f e t y b u t 67 t o d e t e r e x p r e s s i o n , i t m a y b e s e e n a s t a r g e t e d h a r a s s m e n 68 t . I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 3 ' s S e a l B e a c h C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g , M 69 i k e H . o f p o l i c e s t a f f e n t e r e d t h e p u b l i c s e c t i o n o f t h e c o 70 u n c i l c h a m b e r s . H e d e c i d e d t o s i t n e a r m e w h e n t h e c h o i r s a 71 n g . I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 4 ' s S e a l B e a c h C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g , M 72 i k e H . e n t e r e d t h e p u b l i c s e c t i o n o n c e a g a i n . H e d e c i d e d t 73 o s t a n d d i r e c t l y n e x t t o m e d u r i n g t h e N a t i o n a l A n t h e m a n d 74 w h e n t h e c h o i r s a n g . A s I w a s i n t w o c o m p l e t e l y d i f f e r e n t p 75 l a c e s i n t h e r o o m e a c h y e a r , t h i s e s t a b l i s h e s a p a t t e r n e d 76 t a r g e t i n g t h a t c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y b e v i e w e d a s a p p a r e n t p 77 o l i c e i n t i m i d a t i o n t h a t c h i l l s m y f r e e s p e e c h b e f o r e m y p 78 u b l i c c o m m e n t . I n a d d i t i o n , N i c k N . a n d Y o s a o f p o l i c e s t 79 a f f h a v e e n t e r e d t h e p u b l i c s e c t i o n o f t h e c o u n c i l c h a m b e 80 r s d i r e c t l y b e h i n d t h e p o d i u m i n v i e w o f t h e c a m e r a n u m e r o 81 u s t i m e s . T h i s h a p p e n e d e x a c t l y d u r i n g m y p u b l i c c o m m e n t 82 , t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e I t o o k t i m e a w a y f r o m m y a l l o t t e d t i m e t 83 o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e r e p e a t e d p a t t e r n . I c a n o n l y a s s u m e t h a 84 t t h i s w a s a d i r e c t i v e g i v e n b y M i k e H . o f p o l i c e s t a f f d u e t 85 o h i s b o d y l a n g u a g e a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l i n t i m i d a t i o n ' s r e g 86 u l a r i t y . “ S e t t l e m a t t e r s q u i c k l y w i t h y o u r a d v e r s a r y w 87 h o i s t a k i n g y o u t o c o u r t . D o i t w h i l e y o u a r e s t i l l t o g e t h e 88 r o n t h e w a y , o r y o u r a d v e r s a r y m a y h a n d y o u o v e r t o t h e j u d g 89 e , a n d t h e j u d g e m a y h a n d y o u o v e r t o t h e o f f i c e r , a n d y o u m a 90 y b e t h r o w n i n t o p r i s o n . T r u l y I t e l l y o u , y o u w i l l n o t g e t o 91 u t u n t i l y o u h a v e p a i d t h e l a s t p e n n y . " ( M a t t h e w 5 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) 92 א מ ן א מ ן ⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂ ၒၓ ࿬࿭࿮ ⯴⯵⯶ ⍾ J O 8 N O n S u n d a y , M a r c h 9 t h , 2 0 2 5 a t 2 : 2 2 A M , J 93 O 8 N < J O 8 N @ p r o t o n . m e > w r o t e : D e a r L i s a , N a t h a n , J o e , B e n , P a 94 t t y , P a t r i c k , M i k e H . , A n d N i c k G . , I a m f o r m a l l y r e q u e s t i n g a c o r r e c 95 t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d p u r s u a n t t o t h e B r o w n A c t ( C a l i f o r n i a G o v e r 96 n m e n t C o d e § 5 4 9 6 0 . 1 ) d u e t o m i s l e a d i n g a n d i n c o m p l e t e s t a t e m e n t s m a 97 d e b y c i t y s t a f f d u r i n g t h e F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 5 S e a l B e a c h C i t y C o u n c i l m 98 e e t i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , I a m r a i s i n g c o n c e r n s r e g a r d i n g a p o t e n t i a l v 99 i o l a t i o n o f m y F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r e l i g i o u s r i g h t s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a 100 p r e v i o u s s t a t e m e n t m a d e b y t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y w h e n I p u b l i c l y a n n o u n c 101 e d m y C h u r c h ’ s u s e o f " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " a s o n e o f i t s s a c r a m e n t 102 s . S u m m a r y o f B r o w n A c t V i o l a t i o n D u r i n g p u b l i c c o m m e n t , I a d d r e s s e 103 d t h e c o u n c i l r e g a r d i n g t h e d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n o f " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r 104 o o m s " . A f t e r I h a d f i n i s h e d s p e a k i n g , L i s a a s k e d M i k e H . f r o m p o l i c e s 105 t a f f a c l a r i f y i n g q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e l e g a l s t a t u s o f " p s i l o c y b i n m u s 106 h r o o m s " . H e r e s p o n d e d b y s t a t i n g t h a t " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " a r e i l 107 l e g a l u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w b u t f a i l e d t o m e n t i o n t h a t m u l t i p l e C a l i f 108 o r n i a c i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g O a k l a n d , S a n F r a n c i s c o , S a n t a C r u z , a n d A r c 109 a t a , h a v e d e c r i m i n a l i z e d " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " f o r y e a r s . T h i s o 110 m i s s i o n m i s l e d t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e c o u n c i l b y f a l s e l y i m p l y i n g t h a t l o 111 c a l g o v e r n m e n t s l a c k t h e a b i l i t y t o d e p r i o r i t i z e " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r 112 o o m s " e n f o r c e m e n t , w h i c h i s d e m o n s t r a b l y u n t r u e . T h i s i s n o t t h e f i r 113 s t t i m e c i t y o f f i c i a l s h a v e e n g a g e d i n m i s l e a d i n g s t a t e m e n t s r e g a r d 114 i n g " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m " l a w . O n e y e a r a g o , a f t e r I a n n o u n c e d t h e f o 115 r m a t i o n o f m y c h u r c h , w h i c h u s e s " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " , " N , N - D i m e 116 t h y l t r y p t a m i n e " , a n d " N , N - D M T / M A O I " a s s a c r a m e n t s , t h e c i t y a t t o r 117 n e y s i m i l a r l y r e s p o n d e d t h a t " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " a r e i l l e g a l u n 118 d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w — w i t h o u t a c k n o w l e d g i n g r e l i g i o u s p r o t e c t i o n s u 119 n d e r f e d e r a l l a w . F u r t h e r m o r e , b o t h t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y a n d p o l i c e s t 120 a f f f a i l e d t o d i s c l o s e c r i t i c a l p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t I p r e s e n t 121 e d r e g a r d i n g m y o w n c a s e : I w a s h o s p i t a l i z e d a f t e r c o n s u m i n g a p s y c h e 122 d e l i c b u t n o t c h a r g e d w i t h a n y c r i m e ( w h i c h I a m e t e r n a l l y g r a t e f u l f o 123 r ) a n d a l s o f o u n d i n p o s s e s s i o n o f " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m s " a n d " N , N - D 124 M T " w i t h i n S e a l B e a c h . T h e r e p e a t e d o m i s s i o n s b y b o t h t h e c i t y a t t o r n 125 e y a n d p o l i c e s t a f f c r e a t e d a f a l s e n a r r a t i v e t h a t " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r 126 o o m " d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n h a s n o t b e e n s u c c e s s f u l l y i m p l e m e n t e d i n s o 127 m e C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s a n d i g n o r e d k e y e v i d e n c e — i n c l u d i n g m y o w n e x p e 128 r i e n c e — s h o w i n g t h a t l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s h a v e a l r e a d y a d o p t e d c o m p a s 129 s i o n a t e d e f a c t o d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n p r a c t i c e s f o r t h e w e l l b e i n g o f r 130 e s i d e n t s . P o t e n t i a l F i r s t A m e n d m e n t V i o l a t i o n U n d e r R F R A & G o n z a l 131 e s v . U D V ( 2 0 0 6 ) M y c o n c e r n g o e s b e y o n d t r a n s p a r e n c y v i o l a t i o n s u n d e 132 r t h e B r o w n A c t . T h e c i t y a t t o r n e y ’ s r e s p o n s e a y e a r a g o , w h e n I a n n o u n 133 c e d t h e f o r m a t i o n o f m y c h u r c h , r a i s e s s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n s a b o u t w h e t h 134 e r m y F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r e l i g i o u s r i g h t s w e r e d i s m i s s e d o r u n d e r m i n e d 135 i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e R e l i g i o u s F r e e d o m R e s t o r a t i o n A c t ( R F R A ) a n d t h e 136 G o n z a l e s v . O C e n t r o E s p í r i t a B e n e f i c e n t e U n i ã o d o V e g e t a l ( U D V ) S u p 137 r e m e C o u r t c a s e . L e g a l P r e c e d e n t : R e l i g i o u s U s e o f C o n t r o l l e d S u b s 138 t a n c e s I n G o n z a l e s v . U D V ( 2 0 0 6 ) , t h e U . S . S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l e d t h a t a r 139 e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n c o u l d l e g a l l y u s e a f e d e r a l l y c o n t r o l l e d s u b 140 s t a n c e ( " a y a h u a s c a " ) u n d e r R F R A p r o t e c t i o n s , a s t h e g o v e r n m e n t f a i 141 l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r o h i b i t i n g i t s r e l i g i o 142 u s u s e . U n d e r R F R A ( 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 b b - 1 ) , t h e g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t s u b s 143 t a n t i a l l y b u r d e n r e l i g i o u s e x e r c i s e u n l e s s i t c a n p r o v e a c o m p e l l i n 144 g g o v e r n m e n t i n t e r e s t a n d t h a t t h e r e s t r i c t i o n i s t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t 145 i v e m e a n s o f a c h i e v i n g t h a t i n t e r e s t . T h e D E A a n d f e d e r a l c o u r t s h a v e 146 r e c o g n i z e d t h a t s o m e r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s m a y l e g a l l y u s e c o n t r o l l e d s u 147 b s t a n c e s l i k e " p e y o t e " a n d " a y a h u a s c a " u n d e r t h e s e p r o t e c t i o n s . B y 148 f a i l i n g t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e s e p r o t e c t i o n s w h e n I a n n o u n c e d m y c h u r c h 149 , t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y o m i t t e d c r i t i c a l l e g a l c o n t e x t , i m p l y i n g t h a t m y 150 r e l i g i o u s p r a c t i c e w a s c a t e g o r i c a l l y i l l e g a l u n d e r s t a t e l a w — w h e n 151 i n f a c t , f e d e r a l l a w p r o v i d e s a p a t h w a y f o r r e l i g i o u s e x e m p t i o n s . T h 152 i s p o t e n t i a l s u p p r e s s i o n o f m y r e l i g i o u s e x p r e s s i o n i n a p u b l i c f o r u 153 m c o u l d b e s e e n a s a v i o l a t i o n o f m y F i r s t A m e n d m e n t r i g h t s . R e q u e s t e 154 d C o r r e c t i v e A c t i o n s T o r e m e d y t h i s i s s u e , I f o r m a l l y r e q u e s t t h e f o l 155 l o w i n g : P u b l i c C o r r e c t i o n o f t h e R e c o r d – T h e c i t y m u s t a c k n o w l e d g e 156 t h e o m i s s i o n a n d i s s u e a f o r m a l c o r r e c t i o n c l a r i f y i n g t h a t : M u l t i p l 157 e C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s h a v e a l r e a d y d e c r i m i n a l i z e d " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r 158 o o m s " d e s p i t e s t a t e p r o h i b i t i o n . R e l i g i o u s p r o t e c t i o n s e x i s t u n d e 159 r R F R A , a n d t h e U D V c a s e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t r e l i g i o u s u s e o f c o n t r o l l e d 160 s u b s t a n c e s m a y b e l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w . A g e n d a I t e m 161 f o r F u r t h e r D i s c u s s i o n – G i v e n t h e m i s l e a d i n g s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y c i t 162 y o f f i c i a l s , I r e q u e s t t h a t t h e c o u n c i l p l a c e " p s i l o c y b i n m u s h r o o m " 163 d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n o n a f u t u r e a g e n d a t o e n s u r e t h e d i s c u s s i o n i s b a s 164 e d o n a c c u r a t e a n d c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n . A c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r R e p e a t 165 e d O m i s s i o n s – T h e c i t y s h o u l d i m p l e m e n t t r a i n i n g o r p r o c e d u r a l s a f e 166 g u a r d s t o p r e v e n t c i t y o f f i c i a l s f r o m s e l e c t i v e l y o m i t t i n g k e y l e g a 167 l a n d f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y w h e n a d d r e s s i n g t h e c o n t e n t s 168 o f p u b l i c c o m m e n t s . L e g a l R e v i e w o f F i r s t A m e n d m e n t I m p l i c a t i o n s – T 169 h e c i t y s h o u l d r e v i e w i t s p u b l i c s t a t e m e n t s a n d p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g r 170 e l i g i o u s u s e o f c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s t o e n s u r e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h R F R 171 A a n d S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t . L e g a l B a s i s f o r B r o w n A c t C o m p l a i n t 172 U n d e r C a l i f o r n i a G o v e r n m e n t C o d e § 5 4 9 6 0 . 1 , t h e c i t y h a s 3 0 d a y s t o c o 173 r r e c t t h i s v i o l a t i o n o r f a c e p o t e n t i a l l e g a l a c t i o n t o n u l l i f y a n y d e 174 c i s i o n s m a d e u n d e r m i s l e a d i n g o r i n c o m p l e t e i n f o r m a t i o n . F a i l u r e t 175 o a c k n o w l e d g e a n d c o r r e c t t h i s o m i s s i o n c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s a c o n 176 t i n u e d e f f o r t t o o b s c u r e p u b l i c a c c e s s t o t r u t h f u l a n d b a l a n c e d i n f o 177 r m a t i o n , v i o l a t i n g t h e c o r e p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e B r o w n A c t . I r e q u e s t a 178 w r i t t e n r e s p o n s e a c k n o w l e d g i n g r e c e i p t o f t h i s l e t t e r a n d o u t l i n i n 179 g t h e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s t h e c i t y i n t e n d s t o t a k e . I a p p r e c i a t e y o u r a 180 t t e n t i o n t o t h i s s e r i o u s m a t t e r a n d l o o k f o r w a r d t o y o u r r e s p o n s e . 181 א מ ן א מ ן ⭼⭽⭾⭿⮀⮁⮂ ၒၓ ࿬࿭࿮ ⯴⯵⯶ ⍾ J O 8 N Agenda Item A AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:July 14, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk SUBJECT:Approval of the City Council Minutes ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on June 23, 2025. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: This section does not apply. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no environmental impact related to this item. LEGAL ANALYSIS: No legal analysis is required for this item. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact for this item. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting held on June 23, 2025. Page 2 1 9 3 6 SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Gloria D. Harper Patrick Gallegos Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Brandon DeCriscio, Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENTS: A. Minutes - Regular Session, June 23, 2025 Seal Beach, California June 23, 2025 The City Council met in Regular Session at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Mayor Pro Tem Steele led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Landau Council Members: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele Absent: None City Staff: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney Patrick Gallegos, Interim City Manager Michael Henderson, Police Chief Barbara Arenado, Director of Finance/City Treasurer Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Craig Covey, Orange County Fire Authority Division 1 Chief Joe Bailey, Marine Safety Chief Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Mike Ezroj, Police Captain Deb Machen, Executive Assistant Tim Kelsey, Recreation Manager Kathryne Cho, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer David Spitz, Associate Engineer PRESENTATIONS / RECOGNITIONS Coyote Management Presentation Proclamation Honoring the Memory of Virginia Haley Drowning Prevention Month Presentation ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Landau opened oral communications. Speakers: Blake Perez, Lois McNicoll, and Eric Daschbach addressed the City Council. Mayor Landau closed oral communications. Six (6) supplemental communications were received after posting the agenda; they were distributed to the City Council and made available to the public. APPROVAL OF AGENDA & WAIVER OF FULL READING OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Council Member Wong pulled items E and H for separate consideration. Council Member Senecal pulled item I for separate consideration. 1 0 0 3 2 Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to approve the agenda. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Landau, Senecal, Steele NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Ghirelli had nothing to report CITY MANAGER REPORT Interim City Manager Gallegos announced that the Water and Wastewater Utility Service Rates Public Hearing will take place on Monday, July 14, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. He encouraged members of the public to participate in the Public Hearing. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council Member Wong reported his attendance at the G&M Oil Workshop, the Long Beach Commercial Real Estate Council Breakfast, the Water and Sewer Open House Rate Study, the Edison Park Summer Kickoff Picnic, and a meeting between the City and the Chamber of Commerce to discuss business matters. Additionally, Council Member Wong reported that he was a guest speaker for the Leisure World Sunshine Club. Lastly, Council Member Wong thanked Seal Beach Police Department and City Staff for their handling of the protests. Council Member Kalmick reported his attendance at the Seal Beach Emergency Operation Center Table Top Exercise, the Arco Gas Community Meeting, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Emergency Response Table Top Exercise, the G&M Oil Community Meeting, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy Ribbon Cutting Ceremonies in Carson and La Puente, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy meeting, the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Fire Station 33 Push in Ceremony, and the OCFA Academy 61 Graduation. Council Member Senecal reported that she met with residents after the water and wastewater utility rate study open house. Additionally, she thanked city staff for their handling of the protests. 1 0 0 3 2 Mayor Pro Tem Steele announced his attendance at the G&M Oil community meeting, the Seal Beach Emergency Operations Center Table Top Exercise, the Annual Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACC-OC) Leadership banquet, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) Emergency Response Table Top Exercise, the League of California Cities Revenue and Taxation Committee meeting, the Older Adult Advisory Commission (OC-OAC) meeting, the Water and Water Utility Rate Study Open House, the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control meeting and the Active Shooter exercise at McGaugh Elementary School. Additionally, Mayor Pro Tem Steele warned that it is now mosquito season. He cautioned residents against mosquito bites and strongly encouraged mosquito repellent and wearing long sleeves. Mayor Landau thanked Seal Beach Police Department and City Staff for their handling of the protests. Additionally, she announced her attendance at The Chamber of Commerce Summer Concert Series Kickoff and noted that there would be concerts every Wednesday for the next 8 weeks. Lastly, Mayor Landau announced that the Hill Neighbor 4 Neighbor event would take place on Saturday, June 28, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. on Crestview Avenue and Catalina Avenue. COUNCIL ITEMS A. Proximity Restrictions for Short-Term Rentals - That the City Council provide direction to staff related to proximity restrictions for short-term rentals near schools. Mayor Landau recused herself from Item A. Mayor Pro Tem Steele presided over the meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Steele called upon Community Development Director Smittle to provide an overview of the item. Mayor Pro Tem Steele called upon Council Member Senecal. Mayor Pro Tem Steele opened oral communications. Speakers: Scott Levitt. Mayor Pro Tem Steele closed oral communications. A discussion ensued between Council Members Kalmick, Wong and Senecal, Mayor Pro Tem Steele, and Community Development Director Smittle. Council Member’s questions and concerns were addressed by Community Development Director Smittle, Police Chief Henderson, and Scott Levitt. 1 0 0 3 2 Mayor Pro Tem Steele voiced his support of maintaining the current short term rental ordinance. Council Member Senecal requested an update on enforcement of short-term rentals in 3 months. Mayor Landau rejoined the meeting and presided over proceedings. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Steele moved, second by Mayor Landau, to approve the recommended actions on the consent calendar with the exception of Items E, H and I. B. Approval of the City Council Minutes - That the City Council approve the minutes of the Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings held on June 9, 2025. C. Demand on City Treasury (Fiscal Year 2025) - Ratification. D. Monthly Investment Report (June 23, 2025) - Receive and file. E. Approving and Authorizing Amendment 2 to Professional Services Agreement with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects Consulting, LLC (formerly known as Anser Advisory Management, LLC) for the Pier Improvement Project Management Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7660: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects Consulting, LLC (formerly known as Anser Advisory Management, LLC), as amended on November 14, 2022, for additional pier improvement project management services for the Seal Beach Pier Concrete Abutment Restoration (BP2201), Pier Restroom Restoration (BP2202), and Pier Restaurant Feasibility Study (BP2302) projects, and increasing compensation by $67,535 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $228,000; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2. F. Approving Submittal of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Measure M2 Eligibility Package and its Components - That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution 7661 Concerning the Status and Update of the Circulation Element and Mitigation Fee Program for the City of Seal Beach; and, 2. Adopt the seven-year Measure M2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2025-2026 through 2031-2032; and, 3. Direct the Interim City Manager or their designee to file the adopted Resolution, Capital Improvement Program and the Measure M2 eligibility documents with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) in compliance with the requirements of OCTA. G. Emergency Pier Repairs: Determination of Exemption from Public Bidding 1 0 0 3 2 based on Finding of Urgency Necessity to Preserve Public Property and Awarding and Authorizing a Public Works Agreement with Jilk Heavy Construction, Inc. for the Pier Boat Ramp Repair Project (CIP EM2501) - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7662: 1. Declaring the Pier Boat Ramp Repair Project (CIP EM2501) is urgently necessary for the preservation of property of the City per City Charter Section 1010, and Seal Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.25, and finding that the contract for the Pier Boat Ramp Repair Project (CIP EM2501) is therefore exempt from public bidding requirements; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager or their designee to execute a public works agreement with Jilk Heavy Construction, Inc., without advertising for bids, in the amount of $47,580 to perform emergency repair work (CIP EM2501); and, 3. Authorizing the Interim City Manager or their designee to approve additional work requests up to $5,000, and inspection services up to $5,000, in connection with the Project, in the cumulative not-to- exceed amount of $10,000; and, 4. Approving Budget Amendment BA #25-12-01 in the amount of $57,580. H. Approving an Amendment to the Classification Plan and Designating the Pay Grade and Status of the Public Works Superintendent, Senior Utilities Supervisor, and Cross-Connection Control Specialist Classifications - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7663: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Maintenance Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Public Works Superintendent, and designating this job classification to Grade 28B on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 2. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify the Water Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Senior Utilities Supervisor, and designating this job classification to Grade 28A on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 3. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Water Operator position within the Public Works Department to Cross-Connection Control Specialist, and designating this job classification to Grade 17 on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule. I. Approve the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) Between the City and the Seal Beach Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) and the Seal Beach Supervisors & Professionals Association (SBSPA) for the Period of July 1, 2025 Through June 30, 2026 - That the Council adopt Resolution 7664 approving the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Mid- Management and Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) and the Seal Beach Supervisors and Professionals Association (SBSPA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. The vote below is for the Consent Calendar Items with the exception of Items E, H and I. 1 0 0 3 2 AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR E. Approving and Authorizing Amendment 2 to Professional Services Agreement with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects Consulting, LLC (formerly known as Anser Advisory Management, LLC) for the Pier Improvement Project Management Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7660: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects Consulting, LLC (formerly known as Anser Advisory Management, LLC), as amended on November 14, 2022, for additional pier improvement project management services for the Seal Beach Pier Concrete Abutment Restoration (BP2201), Pier Restroom Restoration (BP2202), and Pier Restaurant Feasibility Study (BP2302) projects, and increasing compensation by $67,535 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $228,000; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2. Interim City Manager Gallegos called upon Director of Public Works Lee. Director of Public Works Lee provided an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Wong, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Cho, Public Works Director Lee, Council Member Wong’s questions and concerns were addressed. Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Council Member Wong to adopt Resolution 7660: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects Consulting, LLC (formerly known as Anser Advisory Management, LLC), as amended on November 14, 2022, for additional pier improvement project management services for the Seal Beach Pier Concrete Abutment Restoration (BP2201), Pier Restroom Restoration (BP2202), and Pier Restaurant Feasibility Study (BP2302) projects, and increasing compensation by $67,535 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $228,000; and, 2. Authorizing the Interim City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried H. Approving an Amendment to the Classification Plan and Designating the Pay 1 0 0 3 2 Grade and Status of the Public Works Superintendent, Senior Utilities Supervisor, and Cross-Connection Control Specialist Classifications - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7663: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Maintenance Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Public Works Superintendent, and designating this job classification to Grade 28B on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 2. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify the Water Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Senior Utilities Supervisor, and designating this job classification to Grade 28A on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 3. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Water Operator position within the Public Works Department to Cross-Connection Control Specialist, and designating this job classification to Grade 17 on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule. Interim City Manager Gallegos called upon Director of Public Works Lee. Director of Public Works Lee provided an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Wong, Mayor Pro Tem Steele, Council Member Senecal, City Attorney Ghirelli, Interim City Manager Gallegos, Mayor Landau, Council Member Kalmick, and Public Works Director Lee. Council Member Wong’s questions and concerns were addressed. Council Member Wong voiced his opposition to item H. Council Member Wong moved to authorize an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Water Operator position within the Public Works Department to Cross- Connection Control Specialist, and designating this job classification to Grade 17 on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule. Council Member Wong’s motion was unsuccessful. Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Mayor Pro Tem Steele, to adopt Resolution 7663: 1. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Maintenance Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Public Works Superintendent, and designating this job classification to Grade 28B on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 2. Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify the Water Services Supervisor position within the Public Works Department to Senior Utilities Supervisor, and designating this job classification to Grade 28A on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule; and, 3 . Authorizing an amendment to the Classification Plan to reclassify one (1) Water Operator position within the Public Works Department to Cross-Connection Control Specialist, and designating this job classification to Grade 17 on the Seal Beach Full-Time Pay Schedule. 1 0 0 3 2 AYES: Kalmick, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: Wong ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried I. Approve the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) Between the City and the Seal Beach Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) and the Seal Beach Supervisors & Professionals Association (SBSPA) for the Period of July 1, 2025 Through June 30, 2026 - That the Council adopt Resolution 7664 approving the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Mid- Management and Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) and the Seal Beach Supervisors and Professionals Association (SBSPA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. Interim City Manager Gallegos provided an overview of the staff report. Council Memebr Senecal’s questions were addressed by Interim City Manager Gallegos, Director of Community Development Smittle. Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Council Member Senecal to adopt Resolution 7664 approving the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Mid-Management and Confidential Employees Association (MMCEA) and the Seal Beach Supervisors and Professionals Association (SBSPA) for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026. PUBLIC HEARING J. Resolution Adjusting the Bidding Thresholds for Public Works Contracts and Adjusting the Interim City Manager’s Contract Authority for the Acquisition of Goods and Services - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7665: 1. Confirming the adjustment of bidding threshold for Public Works contracts to $41,818 pursuant to the City Charter Section 1010; and, 2. Adjusting the Interim City Manager’s threshold to bind the City, with or without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials, supplies, labor, services, or other items within the budget approved by City Council to $41,818 pursuant to City Charter 420 and Resolution 6384. Deputy Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Cho provided an in-depth overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Council Member Senecal, Public Works Director Lee, Finance Director Arenado, and Deputy Director of Public Works Cho. Mayor Landau opened the Public Hearing. Speakers: None. Mayor Landau closed the Public Hearing. 1 0 0 3 2 Council Member Kalmick moved, second by Mayor Landau adopt Resolution 7665: 1. Confirming the adjustment of bidding threshold for Public Works contracts to $41,818 pursuant to the City Charter Section 1010; and, 2. Adjusting the Interim City Manager’s threshold to bind the City, with or without a written contract, for the acquisition of equipment, materials, supplies, labor, services, or other items within the budget approved by City Council to $41,818 pursuant to City Charter 420 and Resolution 6384. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Senecal, Steele, Landau NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried UNFINISHED/CONTINUED BUSINESS There were no unfinished/continued business items. NEW BUSINESS K. Resolution Appointing Patrick Gallegos as City Manager and Approving Amendment No. 4 to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Seal Beach and Patrick Gallegos in Connection with Mr. Gallegos’ Appointment as City Manager - That the City Council adopt Resolution 7666 appointing Patrick Gallegos as City Manager and approving Amendment No. 4 to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Seal Beach and Patrick Gallegos in connection with Mr. Gallegos’ appointment as City Manager. Interim City Manager Gallegos recused himself from Item K and left the room. Mayor Landau called upon City Attorney Ghirelli to provide an overview of the staff report. A discussion ensued between Director of Finance Arenado, City Attorney Ghirelli, Council Member Senecal, Mayor Pro Tem Steele, and Mayor Landau. Council Member’s question and concerns were addressed by City Attorney Ghirelli and Director of Finance Arenado. Council Member Senecal voiced her disapproval of the contract terms. Council Members Wong and Kalmick, and Mayor Pro Tem Steele voiced their support of Mr. Gallegos as City Manager. Council Member Wong moved, second by Council Member Kalmick to adopt Resolution 7666 appointing Patrick Gallegos as City Manager and approving Amendment No. 4 to the Employment Agreement Between the City of Seal Beach and Patrick Gallegos in 1 0 0 3 2 connection with Mr. Gallegos’ appointment as City Manager. AYES: Kalmick, Wong, Steele, Landau NOES: Senecal ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Motion carried City Manager Gallegos rejoined the meeting. City Manager Gallegos thanked the Executive Team and the City Council for their hard work and vote of confidence. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Landau adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:45 p.m. to Monday, July 14, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. to meet in closed session, if deemed necessary. __________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Approved:___________________________ Lisa Landau, Mayor Attested:____________________________ Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Agenda Item C AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:July 14, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director SUBJECT:Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas for Development of an Environmental Impact Report ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7667: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas to approve an increase in compensation of $18,080 for continued professional environmental consulting services for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $256,473, and a 12-month extension to expire on June 30, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: On July 22, 2024, the Seal Beach City Council approved Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Psomas to add additional time for the completion of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Old Ranch County Club (ORCC) Specific Plan Proposal. The ORCC, located at 3901 Lampson Avenue, includes a 30,000 square-foot clubhouse, an eighteen-hole golf course, and various other facilities. The proposed Specific Plan aims to develop new and expanded facilities on the 154-acre site, including overnight accommodations, multi-family and senior housing, a parking structure, and additional amenities. Due to the project’s complexity and project tasks out of the original scope, additional time and budget are necessary for the completion of the EIR. Amendment 2 extends the term of the contract by 12-months, to June 30, 2026. The original agreement allocated $238,393 for Psomas to provide professional environmental consulting services for the EIR. Amendment 2 will add an additional Page 2 2 0 9 3 $18,080, resulting in a total not-to-exceed amount of $256,473 to ensure comprehensive coverage of the project's needs. All project costs associated with the ORCC Specific Plan proposal are paid for by the project applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the state CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that approval of this Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas will not have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact on extending the term of the Professional Services Agreement. All project costs associated with the Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan proposal are paid for by the project applicant. STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution 7667: 1. Approving Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas to approve an increase in compensation of $18,080 for continued professional environmental consulting services for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $256,473, and a 12-month extension to expire on June 30, 2026; and, 2. Authorizing the City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Alexa Smittle Patrick Gallegos Alexa Smittle, Community Development Director Patrick Gallegos, City Manager Prepared by: Shaun Temple, Planning Manager Page 3 2 0 9 3 ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7667 B. Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas C. Amendment 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Psomas D. Professional Services Agreement with Psomas RESOLUTION 7667 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PSOMAS INCREASING THE TOTAL COMPENSATION BY $18,080 AND EXTENDING THE DURATION BY 12-MONTHS WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach (City) has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be completed as a part of the development proposal for the property known as the Old Ranch Country Club; and, WHEREAS, the Consultant is a highly qualified consulting firm, specializing in environmental analyses, and will serve the needs of the City; and, WHEREAS, City and Consultant have determined that additional time is required for the continued completion of the EIR and wish to extend the Term of the Agreement to June 30, 2026; and, WHEREAS, City and Consultant have determined that $18,080 of additional funding is necessary for the completion of the EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby approves Amendment 2 to the Professional Services Agreement dated July 25, 2022, with Psomas, extending the term through June 30, 2026, and approving an increase in compensation of $18,080 for a revised total not-to-exceed amount of $256,473. Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, or their designee, to execute Amendment 2 on behalf of the City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members _________________________________ NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members 1 0 2 7 2 Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7667 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Amendment No. 2 for Environmental Impact Report Between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 & Psomas 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 This Amendment No. 2 dated July 14, 2025, amends that certain agreement (Agreement) made as of July 25, 2022 by and between the City of Seal Beach (City), a California charter city, and Psomas (Consultant), a California corporation (collectively, “the Parties”). 2 of 3 RECITALS A. City and Consultant are parties to the Agreement, pursuant to which Consultant provides services for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report associated with a proposed development project located at the Old Ranch Country Club. B. City and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement for Consultant to extend the executed document from June 30, 2025, for a 12-month extension to conclude on June 30, 2026, and to increase the executed agreement for an additional $18,080 for continued services. AMENDMENT NO. 2 NOW, THEREFORE and in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, the parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: Section 1. Section 2.0 (Term) of the July 25, 2022 Agreement is hereby amended for a 12-month extension to expire June 30, 2026, to read as follows: The term of this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2022 and shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 2026, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. Section 2. Section 3.0 (Consultant Compensation) of the July 25, 2022 Agreement is hereby amended to increase by $18,080, the contract amount to $256,473, to read as follows: City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rates and fees shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for all Services and expenses incurred in the performance of this Agreement, but in no event will the City pay more than the total not-to-exceed amount of $256,473 (two hundred fifty-six thousand, four hundred and seventy-three dollars) for the Term, except as otherwise authorized pursuant to Section 3.2 hereunder. Section 3. All references to the term “Agreement” throughout Sections 1.0 through 35.0 inclusive, of the Agreement are hereby modified to include the this Amendment No. 2, dated July 14, 2025, as if all of those terms are fully set forth therein. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT for Environmental Impact Report between City of Seal Beach 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 E- L Psomas 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 This Professional Service Agreement ("the Agreement') is made as of July 25, 2022 (the Effective Date"), by and between Psomas ("Consultant'), a California corporation, and the City of Seal Beach ("City"), a California charter city, (collectively, "the Parties"). RECITALS A. City desires certain professional environmental consulting services for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a proposed development project located at the Old Ranch Country Club. B. Pursuant to the authority provided by its City Charter and Seal Beach Municipal Code § 3.20.025(C), City desires to engage Consultant to provide professional environmental consulting services in the manner set forth herein and more fully described in Section 1.0. A. Consultant represents that the principal members of its firm are fully qualified by virtue of their training, experience, and expertise to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner; and it desires to perform such services as provided herein. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the Parties' performance of the promises, covenants, and conditions stated herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows. AGREEMENT 1.0 Scope of Services 1.1 Consultant shall provide those environmental consulting services collectively "Services") for preparation of an Environmenal Impact Report and related CEQA documentation as set forth in Consultant's Proposal dated April 25, 2022 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. To the extent that there is any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in accordance with the standard of care generally exercised by like professionals under similar circumstances and in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City. 1.3 In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local law. 1.4 As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Consultant hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the Services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Consultant hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing all Services. The City relies upon the skill of Consultant, and Consultant's staff, if any, to do and perform the Services in a skillful, competent, and professional manner, and Consultant and Consultant's staff, shall perform the Services in such manner. Page 2 of 23 Consultant shall, at all times, meet or exceed any and all applicable professional standards of care. 1.5 Consultant will not be compensated for any work performed not specified in the Scope of Services unless the City authorizes such work in advance and in writing. The City Manager may authorize extra work to fund unforeseen conditions in an amount not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the contract price set forth in Section 3.1. Payment for additional work in excess of this amount requires prior City Council authorization. 2.0 Term The term of this Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2022 and shall remain in full force and effect until July 31, 2024, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 5.0 of this Agreement. 3.0 Consultant's Compensation 3.1 City will pay Consultant in accordance with the hourly rate and fees shown on the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A for all Services and expenses incurred in the performance of this Agreement, but in no event will the City pay more than the total not -to -exceed amount of $238,393 for the Term, except as otherwise authorized pursuant to Section 3.2 hereunder. 3.2 Any additional work authorized by the City pursuant to Section 1.6 will be compensated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 4.0 Method of Payment 4.1. Consultant shall submit to City monthly invoices for all Services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Such invoices shall be submitted within 15 days of the end of the month during which the Services were rendered and shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period, the days worked, number of hours worked, the hourly rates charged, and the Services performed for each day in the period. City will pay Consultant within 30 days of receiving Consultant's invoice. City will not withhold any applicable federal or state payroll and other required taxes, or other authorized deductions from payments made to Consultant. 4.2. Upon 24-hour notice from City, Consultant shall allow City or City's agents or representatives to inspect at Consultant's offices during reasonable business hours all records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Consultant in connection with this Agreement. City's rights under this Section 4.2 shall survive for three (3) years following the termination of this Agreement. Page 3 of 23 5.0 Termination 5.1. This Agreement may be terminated by City, without cause, or by Consultant based on reasonable cause, upon giving the other party written notice thereof not less than 30 days prior to the date of termination. 5.2. This Agreement may be terminated by City upon 10 days' notice to Consultant if Consultant fails to provide reasonably satisfactory evidence of renewal or replacement of comprehensive general liability insurance as required by this Agreement at least 20 days before the expiration date of the previous policy. 6.0 Party Representatives 6.1. The City Manager is the City's representative for purposes of this Agreement. 6.2. Jim Hunter is the Consultant's primary representative for purposes of this Agreement. Jim Hunter shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Consultant and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the Services hereunder. Consultant may not change its representative without the prior written approval of City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7.0 Notices 7.1. _ All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed 48 hours after deposit in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at the following addresses: To City: City of Seal Beach 211 8t" Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Attn: City Manager To Consultant: Psomas 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Attn: Jim Hunter 7.2 Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. Page 4 of 23 8.0 Permits and Licenses Consultant and all of Consultant's employees and other personnel shall obtain and maintain during the Agreement term all necessary licenses, permits and certificates required by law for the provision of the Services under this Agreement, including a business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. 9.0 Independent Contractor 9.1 Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. All work or other Services provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by Consultant or by Consultant's employees or other personnel under Consultant's supervision, and Consultant and all of Consultant's personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City of Seal Beach business license as required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Consultant will determine the means, methods, and details by which Consultant's personnel will perform the Services. Consultant shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the customary professional standards. 9:2 All of Consultant's employees and other personnel performing any of the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall also not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant and Consultant's personnel shall not supervise any of City's employees; and City's employees shall not supervise Consultant's personnel. Consultant's personnel shall not wear or display any City uniform, badge, identification number, or other information identifying such individual as an employee of City; and Consultant's personnel shall not use any City e-mail address or City telephone number in the performance of any of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall acquire and maintain at its sole cost and expense such vehicles, equipment and supplies as Consultant's personnel require to perform any of the Services required by this Agreement. Consultant shall perform all Services off of City premises at locations of Consultant's choice, except as otherwise may from time to time be necessary in order for Consultant's personnel to receive projects from City, review plans on file at City, pick up or deliver any work product related to Consultant's performance of any Services under this Agreement, or as may be necessary to inspect or visit City locations and/or private property to perform such Services. City may make a computer available to Consultant from time to time for Consultant's personnel to obtain information about or to check on the status of projects pertaining to the Services under this Agreement. 11 9.3 Consultant shall be responsible for and pay all wages, salaries, benefits and other amounts due to Consultant's personnel in connection with their performance of any Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Page 5 of 23 Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: Social Security taxes, other retirement or pension benefits, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. Notwithstanding any other agency, State, or federal policy, rule, regulation, statute or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors providing any of the Services under this Agreement shall not become entitled to, and hereby waive any claims to, any wages, salaries, compensation, benefit or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to, eligibility to enroll in, or reinstate to membership in, the California Public Employees Retirement System ("PERS") as an employee of City, and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 10.0 PERS Compliance and Indemnification 10.1. General Requirements. The Parties acknowledge that City is a local agency member of PERS, and as such has certain pension reporting and contribution obligations to PERS on behalf of qualifying employees. Consultant agrees that, in providing its employees and any other personnel to City to perform any work or other Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall assure compliance with the Public Employees' Retirement Law ("PERL"), commencing at Government Code § 20000, as amended by the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"),. and the regulations of PERS. Without limitation to the foregoing, Consultant shall assure compliance with regard to personnel who have active or inactive membership in PERS and to those who are retired annuitants and in performing this Agreement shall not assign or utilize any of its personnel in a manner that will cause City to be in violation of the PERL, PEPRA or any other applicable retirement laws and regulations. 10.2 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel approved by City, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify and hold harmless City, and its City and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from, caused by, or relating to Consultant's violation of any provisions of this Section 9.0. This duty of indemnification is in addition to Consultant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless as set forth in any other provision of this Agreement. 11.0 Confidentiality 11.1. Consultant covenants that all data, reports, documents, surveys, studies, drawings, plans, maps, models, photographs, images, video files, media, discussion, or other information (collectively "Data & Documents") developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed Page 6 of 23 confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested in writing by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the Services performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered "voluntary," provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. 11.2 Consultant shall promptly notify City should Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors 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 party regarding this Agreement and the work performed thereunder. City may, but has no obligation to, represent Consultant or be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct or rewrite the response. 11.3 Consultant's covenants under this Section shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 12.0 Ownership of Documents and Work Product 12.1. All Data & Documents shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use, duplication or dissemination by City. All Data & Documents shall be considered "works made for hire," and all Data & Documents and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by City. Consultant shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any Data & Documents. 12.2. Consultant hereby assigns to City all ownership and any and all intellectual property rights to the Data & Documents that are not otherwise vested in City pursuant to the paragraph directly above this one. 12.3. Consultant warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of all Written Products produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce Page 7 of 23 the Data & Documents. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City's use of any of the Data & Documents is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Consultant shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the Services and Data & Documents produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the Written Products or other deliverables hereunder by City is held to constitute an infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, Consultant, at its expense, shall: (1) secure for City the right to continue using the Data & Documents and other deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (2) modify the Data & Documents and other deliverables so that they become non -infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. These covenants shall survive the expiration and/or termination of this Agreement. 12.4. Upon expiration or termination of the Agreement, Consultant shall deliver to City all Data & Documents and other deliverables related to any Services performed pursuant to this Agreement without additional cost or expense to City. If Consultant prepares a document on a computer, Consultant shall provide City with said document both in a printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to City. 13.0 Subcontractors No portion of this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Consultant is fully responsible to City for the performance of any and all subcontractors. 14.0 Prohibition Against Assignment or Delegation Consultant shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without City's prior written consent. Any purported assignment or delegation in violation of this Section shall be void and without effect, and shall entitle City to terminate this Agreement. As used in this Section, "assignment" and "delegation" means any sale, gift, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance or other transfer of all or any portion of the rights, obligations, or liabilities in or arising from this Agreement to any person or entity, whether by operation of law or otherwise, and regardless of the legal form of the transaction in which the attempted transfer occurs. 15.0 Inspection and Audit of Records Page 8 of 23 Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all Services and other matters covered under this Agreement, including but expressly not limited to, all Services performed, salaries, wages, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets, costs, expenses, receipts and other records with respect to this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records on the Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of all Services in connection therewith. All such records shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. At all times during regular business hours, Consultant shall provide City with free access to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make copies and transcripts as City deems necessary, and shall allow inspection of all program data, information, documents, proceedings and activities and all other matters related to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall retain all financial and program service records and all other records related to the Services and performance of this Agreement for at least three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. City's rights under this Section 13.0 shall survive for three (3) years after expiration, termination or final payment under this Agreement, whichever occurs later. 16.0 Safety Requirements All work performed under this Agreement shall be performed in such a manner as to provide safety to the public and to meet or exceed the safety standards outlined by CAL OSHA and other applicable local, state and federal laws, industry safety orders and/or health orders. Consultant's obligations shall include but are not limited to, the requirement to comply with all applicable COVID-19 social distancing requirements, daily monitoring and recordkeeping requirements when Consultant's employees come onsite, and other applicable provisions of any applicable industry safety standards and/or health orders issued by the County of Orange, City of Seal Beach, and/or any other federal, state or local agency with jurisdiction over the City and/or Consultant, during Consultant's performance of the Project. The City may issue restraint or cease and desist orders to Consultant when unsafe or harmful acts are observed or reported relative to the performance of the Services. Consultant shall maintain its work sites free of hazards to persons and property resulting from its operations. Consultant shall immediately report to the City any hazardous condition noted by Consultant. ` 17.0 Insurance 17.1. General Reguirements. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City that Consultant has secured all insurance required under this Section. 17.2. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure, maintain and keep in full force and effect for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or Page 9 of 23 damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement, as follows: 17.2.1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage; and if Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit: Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage occurrence form CG 0001). If Consultant is a limited liability company, the commercial general liability coverage shall be amended so that Consultant and its managers, affiliates, employees, agents and other persons necessary or incidental to its operation are insureds; 17.2.2. Automobile Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain limits no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Coverage shall be at least as broad as Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); 17.2.3. Workers' Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law; and Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease; 17.2.4. Professional Liability (or Errors and Omissions) Liability, within minimum limits of $1,000,000 per claim/aggregate. If a "claims made" policy is provided, then the policy shall be endorsed to provide an extended reporting period of not less than three years. 17.3. Acceptability of Insurers. The Insurance policies required under this Section shall be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the City. 17.4. Additional Insured. 17.4.1. For general liability insurance, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents acting as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work. 17.4.2. For automobile liability, City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, Page 10 of 23 maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible. 17.4.3. These additional insured provisions shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies. 17.5. Cancellations or Modifications to Coverage. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved, by City to state: (1) coverage shall not be canceled except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to City, ten (10) days if cancellation is due to non-payment of premium; (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; 17.6. Primary and Non -Contributing. Coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers designated volunteers and.agents serving as independent contractors in `the role of City officials, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage and that any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents. designated volunteers designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it; 17.7. Separation of Insureds. All insurance required by this Section except workers' compensation and professional liability) shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions and shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 17.8. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall be declared to and approved by City. Consultant guarantees that, at the option of City, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials; or 2) Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 17.9. Waiver of Subrogation. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall expressly waive the insurer's right of subrogation against City and Page 11 of 23 its elected and appointed officials, officers,. employees, agents, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Consultant hereby waives all rights of subrogation against City. 17.10. City Remedy for Noncompliance. If Consultant does not maintain the policies of insurance required under this Section in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, or in the event any of Consultant's policies do not comply with the requirements under this Section, City may either immediately terminate this Agreement or,r if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, City may, but has no duty to, take out the necessary insurance and pay, at Consultant's expense, the premium thereon. Consultant shall promptly reimburse City for any premium paid by City or City may withhold amounts sufficient to pay the premiums from payments due to Consultant. 17.11. Evidence of Insurance. Prior to the performance of Services under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with original certificates of insurance and all original endorsements evidencing and effecting the coverages required under this Section on forms satisfactory to and approved by City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms provided by City if requested. Consultant may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies to City. Consultant shall maintain current endorsements on file with City's Risk Manager. All certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work commences. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Consultant shall also provide proof to City that insurance policies expiring during the term of this Agreement have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Consultant shall furnish such proof at least two weeks prior to the expiration of the coverages. 17.12. Indemnity Requirements Not Limiting. Procurement of insurance by Consultant shall not be construed as a limitation of Consultant's liability or as full performance of .Consultant's duty to indemnify City under Section 18.0. 17.13. Broader Coverage/Higher Limits. If Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required above, City requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City. 17.14. Subcontractor Insurance Requirements. Consultant shall require each of its subcontractors that perform Services under this Agreement to maintain insurance coverage that meets all of the requirements of this Section. 18.0 Indemnification, Hold Harmless, and Duty to Defend Page 12 of 23 18.1. Indemnity for Design Professional Services. 18.1.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, indemnify and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, designated volunteers, successors, assigns and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively "Indemnitees" in this Section 18.0), from and against any and all third -party damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens and losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of attorneys, accountants and other professionals and all costs associated therewith, and reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense (collectively "Claims"), in law or in equity, to the extent caused by, in whole or in part, the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or employees or any entity or individual that Consultant shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of design professional services under this Agreement by a design professional," as the term is- defined under California Civil Code § 2782.8(c). Notwithstanding the foregoing and as required by Civil Code § 2782.8(a), in no event shall the cost to defend the Indemnitees that is charged to Consultant exceed Consultant's proportionate percentage of fault. 18.1.2. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.2. Other Indemnitees. 18.2.1 , Other than in the performance of design professional services, and to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify the Indemnitees from and against any and all third -party damages, costs, expenses, liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, penalties, bid protests, stop notices, liens and losses of any nature whatsoever, including but not limited to fees of accountants, attorneys and other professionals, and all costs associated therewith, and payment of all consequential damages (collectively "Liabilities"), in law or equity, whether actual, alleged or threatened, to the extent caused by the negligent or reckless acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers, or contractors, or their officers, agents, servants or employees (or any entity or individual that Consultant' shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, including the Indemnitees' active or passive negligence, except for Liabilities arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all reasonable attorneys' Page 13 of 23 fees and experts' costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall defend the Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any Liabilities with counsel of the Indemnitees' choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys' fees and experts' costs actually incurred in connection with such defense. Consultant shall reimburse the Indemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by the Indemnitees in connection therewith. 18.2.2 Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City in accordance with Sections 9.0 and 10.0. 18.3. Subcontractor Indemnification. Consultant shall obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those in this Section 18.0 from each and every subcontractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. If Consultant fails to obtain such indemnities, Consultant shall be fully responsible and indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees from and against any and all Claims in law or equity, to the extent caused by the negligent or reckless acts or omissions of, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, subcontractors, materialmen, contractors or their officers, agents, servants or the legal liability thereof) in the performance of this Agreement, except for Claims or Liabilities arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the Parties. 18.4. Workers' Compensation Acts Not Limiting. Consultant's indemnification obligations under this Section, or any other provision of this Agreement, shall not be limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or similar act. Consultant expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its elected and appointed officers, officials, agents, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. 18.5. Insurance Requirements Not Limiting. City does not, and shall not, waive any rights that it may possess against Consultant because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnities and obligations in this Section shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the Claims or Liabilities asserted against City or any of the other Indemnitees. 18.6. Survival of Terms. Consultant's covenants under this Section 18.0 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Page 14 of 23 19.0 Non -Discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant affirmatively represents that it is an equal opportunity employer. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee, or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, 'or any other basis prohibited by law. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religious creed, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information or sexual orientation, or any other basis prohibited by law. 20.0 Labor Certification By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 21.0 Prevailing Wage and Payroll Records If this Agreement calls- for services that, in whole or in part, constitute "public works" as defined in the California Labor Code, Consultant shall comply in all respects with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including those set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 22.0 Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect"to the r subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings, or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 23.0 Severability The invalidity in whole or in part of any provisions of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of the other provisions of this Agreement. 24.0 Governing Law and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, except that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in Page 15 of 23 interpreting this Agreement. Any dispute that arises under or relates to this Agreement (whether contract, tort or both) shall be resolved in a superior court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Seal Beach. 25.0 No Third Party Beneficiaries This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns, and no other person or entity shall be deemed to have any rights hereunder against either party by virtue of this Agreement. 26.0 Waiver No delay or omission to exercise any right, power or remedy accruing to City under this Agreement shall impair any right, power or remedy of City, nor shall it be construed as a waiver of, or consent to, any breach or default. No waiver of any breach, any failure of a condition, or any right or remedy under this Agreement shall be (1) effective unless it is in writing and signed by the Party making the waiver, (2) deemed to be a waiver of, or consent to, any other breach, failure of a condition, or right or remedy, or (3) deemed to constitute a continuing waiver unless the writing expressly so states. 27.0 Prohibited Interests; Conflict of Interest 27.1. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having -any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Consultant shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Consultant "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code 1090 and 87100) in. any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Consultant has been retained. 27.2. Consultant further warrants and maintains that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Nor has Consultant paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Consultant, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Consultant hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. Page 16 of 23 27.3. Consultant warrants and maintains that it has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, non - contractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Consultant, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Consultant at any time during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in this Section. 28.0 Final Payment Acceptance Constitutes Release The acceptance by Consultant of the final payment made under this Agreement shall operate as and be a release of City from all claims and liabilities for compensation to Consultant for anything done, furnished or relating to Consultant's work or services. Acceptance of payment shall be any negotiation of City's check or the failure to make a written extra compensation claim within ten calendar days of the receipt of that check. However, approval or payment by City shall not constitute, nor be deemed, a release of the responsibility and liability of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents for the accuracy and competency of the information provided and/or work performed.; nor shall such approval or payment be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility or liability by City for any defect or error in the work prepared by Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and agents. 29.0 Corrections In addition to the indemnification obligations set forth above, Consultant shall correct, at its expense, all errors in the work which may be disclosed during City's review of Consultant's report or plans. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a reasonably timely manner, such correction may be made by City, and the cost thereof shall be charged to Consultant. In addition to all other available remedies, City may deduct the cost of such correction from any retention amount held by City or may withhold payment otherwise owed Consultant under this Agreement up to the amount of the cost of correction. 30.0 Non -Appropriation of Funds Payments to be made to Consultant by City for any Services performed within the current fiscal year are within the current fiscal budget and within an available, unexhausted fund. In the event that City does not appropriate sufficient funds for payment of Consultant's Services beyond the current fiscal year, this Agreement shall cover payment for Consultant's Services only to the conclusion of the last fiscal year in which City appropriates sufficient funds and shall automatically terminate at the conclusion of such fiscal year. 31.0 Mutual Cooperation Page 17 of 23 31.1. City's Cooperation. City shall provide Consultant with all pertinent Data, documents and other requested information as is reasonably available for Consultant's proper performance of the Services required under this Agreement. 31.2. Consultant's Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Consultant's performance of Services rendered under this Agreement, Consultant shall render any reasonable assistance that City requires. 32.0 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be construed to limit or deprive a Party of the benefits of any grace or use period allowed in this Agreement. 33.0 Attorneys' Fees If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party all of its attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in connection therewith. 34.0 Exhibits All exhibits referenced in this Agreement are hereby incorporated into the Agreement as if set forth in full herein. In the event of any material discrepancy between the terms of any exhibit so incorporated and the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control. 35.0 Corporate Authority The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said party and that by his or her execution, the Consultant is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement. Page 18 of 23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, through their respective authorized representatives have executed this Agreement as of the date and year first above written. CITY OF SEAL BEACH By: dl R. Ingram, City Manager Attest: in Approved as to Fo LIM ig A. Steele, City Attorney CONSULTANT: Psomas, a California corporation By: A > ' 4's—'— Name:_ J m Hunter Its: By: AA M Name: Cha Wilson Its: Vice President and Secretary Please note, two signatures required or corporations pursuant to California Corporations Code Section 313 from each of the following categories: (i) the chairperson of the board, the president or any vice president, and (ii) the secretary, any assistant secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of such corporation.) Page 19 of 23 EXHIBIT A CONSULTANT'S PROPOSAL DATED APRIL 24, 2022 Attached) EXHIBIT B TERMS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW REQUIREMENTS 1. This Agreement calls for services that, in whole or in part, constitute "public works" as defined in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1720) of the California Labor Code ("Chapter 1"). Further, Consultant acknowledges that this Agreement is subject to (a) Chapter 1 and (b) the rules and regulations established by the Department of Industrial Relations ("DIR') implementing such statutes. Therefore, as to those Services that are "public works", Consultant shall comply with and be bound by all the terms, rules and regulations described in 1(a) and 1(b) as though set forth in full herein. 2. California law requires the inclusion of specific Labor Code provisions in certain contracts. The inclusion of such specific provisions below, whether or not required by California law, does not alter the meaning or scope of Section 1 above. 3. Consultant shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1725.5, and has provided proof of registration to City prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform work with any subcontractor that is not registered with DIR pursuant to Section 1725.5. Consultant and subcontractors shall maintain their registration with the DIR in effect throughout the duration of this Agreement. If Consultant or any subcontractor ceases to be registered with DIR at any time during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. , 4. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4, Consultant's Services are subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. Consultant shall post job site notices, as prescribed by DIR regulations. 5. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to perform the Agreement are on file at City Hall and will be made available to any interested party on request. Consultant acknowledges receipt of a copy of the DIR determination of -such prevailing rate of per diem wages, and Consultant shall post such rates at each job site covered by this Agreement. 6. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775 concerning the payment of prevailing rates of wages to workers and the penalties for failure to pay prevailing wages. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit 200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the DIR for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done pursuant to this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor. 7. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, which requires Consultant and each subcontractor to: keep accurate payroll records and verify such records in writing under penalty of perjury, as specified in Section 1776; certify and make such payroll records available for inspection as provided by Section 1776; and inform City of the location of the records. 8. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 and California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 200 et seq. concerning the employment- of apprentices on public works projects. Consultant shall be responsible for compliance with these aforementioned Sections for all apprenticeable occupations. Prior to commencing work under this Agreement, Consultant shall provide City with a copy of the information submitted to any applicable apprenticeship program. Within 60 days after concluding work pursuant to this Agreement, Consultant and each of its subcontractors shall submit to City a verified statement of the journeyman and apprentice hours performed under this Agreement. 9. Consultant shall not perform work with any Subcontractor that has been debarred or suspended pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. Consultant and subcontractors shall not be debarred or suspended throughout the duration of this Contract pursuant to Labor Code Section 1777.1 or any other federal or state law providing for the debarment of contractors from public works. If Consultant or any subcontractor becomes debarred or suspended during the duration of the project, Consultant shall immediately notify City. 10. Consultant acknowledges that eight hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by Labor Code Section 1810. Consultant shall comply with and be bound by the provisions of Labor Code Section 1813 concerning penalties for workers who work excess hours. Consultant shall, as a penalty to City, forfeit 25.00 for each worker employed in the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1815, work performed by employees of Consultant in excess of eight hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week shall be permitted upon public work upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day at not less than one and one-half times the basic rate of pay. 11. California Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700 provide that every employer will be required to secure the payment of compensation to its employees. In accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1861, Consultant hereby certifies as follows: I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract." 12. For every subcontractor who will perform work on the project, Consultant shall be responsible for such subcontractor's compliance with Chapter 1 and Labor Code Sections 1860 and 3700, and Consultant shall include in the written contract between it and each subcontractor a copy of those statutory provisions and a requirement that each subcontractor shall comply with those statutory provisions. Consultant shall be required to take all actions necessary to enforce such contractual provisions and ensure subcontractor's compliance, including without limitation, conducting a periodic review of the certified payroll records of the subcontractor and upon becoming aware of the failure of the subcontractor to pay his or her workers the specified prevailing rate of wages. Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify any failure. 13. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend (at Consultant's expense with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent contractors serving in the role of City officials, and volunteers from and against any demand or claim for damages, compensation, fines, penalties or other amounts arising out of or incidental to any acts or omissions listed above by any person or entity (including Consultant, its subcontractors, and each of their officials, officers, employees and agents) in connection with any work undertaken or in connection with the Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, attorneys' fees, and other related costs and expenses. All duties of Consultant under this Section shall survive the termination of the Agreement. OLD RANCH COUNTRY CLUB , SPECIFIC PLAN EIR pill NEW.- M&.11wom UIWA o t 0:. pill NEW.- M&.11wom UIWA April 25, 2022 Art Bashmakian, AICP Project Manager CITY OF SEAL BEACH Community Development Department 2118th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Balancing the Natural and Built Environment splanner@sealbeachca.gov Subject: Proposal for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Bashmakian: Psomas is in receipt of the City of Seal Beach's (City's) Request for Proposal (RFP) for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan (Project or proposed Project). Psomas has reviewed the RFP and has prepared the attached proposal for your consideration. Dedicated to balancing the natural and built environments, Psomas serves public and private clients in markets which include site development, transportation, water, and energy, with the following core services offered: Environmental Services Civil Engineering Construction Management Land Surveying and GIS The cornerstone of our business approach is to focus on our clients' long-term needs and to provide quality service and guidance to meet those needs. Our key attribute is our multidisciplinary team of experts. Psomas' professional staff of industry leaders produces cost-effective and award-winning projects for our clients through a value-added approach, incorporating innovation, creativity, sustainability, and cutting-edge technical expertise. The technical experts of the Psomas Environmental Planning and Resource Management Team have successfully provided California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation to public and private sector clients. Psomas' experience in preparing CEQA and NEPA documentation ranges from straightforward categorical exemptions (CEs) to complex Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) for large, controversial projects. Psomas provides strategic consulting to clients based on their project needs. In addition, our services include the preparation and peer review of documents in the following topical areas: Air Quality Analyses, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, and Health Risk Assessments Energy Analysis Noise and Vibration Technical Studies Cultural Resources and Paleontological Resources 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel 714.751.7373 www.Psomas.com Art Bashmakian, AICP April 25, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Tribal Cultural Resources Assessments and AB 52 and SB 18 Consultation Biological Resources Technical Studies and Arborist Surveys Regulatory Permitting and Resource Agency Jurisdictional Delineations Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Services Shade. and Shadow Analysis Civil Engineering, Utility Capacity Studies, Hydrology and Drainage Analyses Transportation/Traffic Engineering and Parking Studies Scoping Meeting and Community Meeting Facilitation From our experience with numerous redevelopment, infill and major land development projects for cities and regional agencies throughout Southern California, we have learned the most important attributes a consultant can offer a lead agency are experience, responsiveness, and flexibility. As your consultant, we will act as an extension of your staff and, thus, it is important to be sensitive to community concerns and knowledgeable of the local regulations and City policies. When you select the Psomas Team, you can expect the following benefits: Experienced Project Manager. Much of the responsibility for the success of the environmental process depends on the Project Manager's ability to engender the confidence of the City by providing consistently dependable, accurate, and responsive client service. Alia Hokuki, AICP, a Senior Project Manager, will serve as the main point of contact to the City and Project Team and the day-to-day Project Manager with the responsibility of ensuring work is in compliance with CEQA, on schedule, within budget, and to the satisfaction of the City, the Applicant, and the Project Team. ARA expertise and experience includes managing a variety of project types, including residential, assisted and senior living, mixed-use, institutional (healthcare and education), commercial, and infrastructure projects. She has led teams on numerous land development infill/redevelopment projects in coastal cities of Southern California. She has worked on multiple CEQA documents for Specific Plans; her most recent relevant experience includes the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project EIR for the City of Newport Beach, the West Alton Project EIR residential with affordable units and senior apartments as an alternative) for the County of Orange, the Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan Program EIR for the City of Huntington Beach, and leading preparation of technical studies for assisted living projects for Oakmont Senior Living client. Jim Hunter, will be the Principal -in -Charge for the proposed Project. Jim has 35 years of experience providing strategic land use entitlement, environmental, and regulatory compliance services to private industry, municipal, and utility clients in Southern California. Responsive Staff. Alia will be supported by a team of highly skilled environmental planners and technical specialists who are experts in their respective fields and will provide project solutions for the City. The Psomas Team is well rounded and ready to provide the City with high quality environmental and planning services. The Psomas Team has a broad range of expertise and a deep bench of technical staff who can be assigned to the project, as needed. We understand the Applicant has prepared multiple technical studies/reports, including Biological Resources, Arborist (assessment of Eucalyptus Windows), Geotechnical, Hydrology, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), and a Traffic Study, which will be peer reviewed by our technical staff and used in preparing the EIR document. Art Bashmakian, AICP April 25, 2022 Page 3 of 3 We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this interesting and important project, and we look forward to collaborating with the City and the Applicant on a successful CEQA EIR,process. As a Vice President, Jim Hunter, is authorized to sign the City of Seal Beach's Professional Services Agreement for Psomas. As Project Manager for this contract, Alia will be the primary contact person responsible for day-to-day management for the environmental services pursuant to the City's RFP. Please contact Alia by phone at 714.481.8065 or by email at Alia.Hokuki@Psomas.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, PSOMAS i Hunter Alia Hokuki, AICP Vice President Senior Project Manager I TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Team Project Team Organizational Chart, Resumes. , Statements 1 2 3 Overview Problem/Tasks, 15 General Approach Work Plan Project Schedule Relevant Projects and References EIR Examples 17 20 34 36 Submitted separately Cost Submitted in a separate, sealed envelope Psomas engenders the confidence of our clients by providing consistently dependable, accurate, and responsive client service. Psomas Project Team Much of the responsibility for success of the CEQA process depends on the Project Manager's ability to engender the confidence of our clients by providing consistently dependable, accurate, and responsive client service. To meet the expectations of the City of Seal Beach and the needs of the Project, Psomas has assembled a highly qualified team, led by Alia Hokuki, AICP, as Project Manager, who will provide high quality and legally - defensible environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA, on schedule, within budget, and to the satisfaction of the City and the Project Applicant. Alia will be supported by Jim Hunter, as Principal -in -Charge. Alia Hokuki and Jim Hunter are committed to providing client -centered services that can streamline the project development process while offering creative solutions. In staffing our team, we have assigned highly qualified technical experts and experienced environmental planning staff who have proven track records in successfully delivering environmental impact analyses, associated technical studies, and related services. All key team members shown on the Organization Chart are assigned for the duration of this contract. Alia Hokuki, AICP I Project Manager and Primary Contact Alia Hokuki, AICP, is a Senior Project Manager with 26 years of experience in the environmental and policy planning field with a focus on environmental impact assessments for public and private sector clients. Alia's project experience is diverse, with a strength in land use and land development. In the last five years, her focus has been on land development projects, including a program EIR for the Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan Project and an IS/ MND for Gisler Residential Project in the City of Huntington Beach; an EIR for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project and an Addendum for the Ritz-Carlton Residences Project in the City of Newport Beach; an IS/ND for the Street Lights Fullerton Project in the City of Fullerton; a project EIR for the West Alton Parcel Development Plan, in the County of Orange within the City of Irvine, and an IS/MND for Walnut Grove Specific Plan Project in the City of West Covina. Alia's work over the past several years has spanned multiple agencies and she has managed several environmental projects in Orange and Los Angeles counties. Alia will be the day-to-day Project Manager and primary contact. She will coordinate with the City, the Applicant, and Project Team (as approved by the City) with the responsibility to ensure the work is completed on time and within budget. Alia will facilitate communication with the City's Project Manager, Project Team, and applicable agencies, as appropriate. She will oversee preparation of the EIR and will prepare critical sections of the document. Alia will attend all project meetings as well as public hearings. Organization Chart Psomas recognizes that the success of a project depends heavily on staff capabilities, effective project management, and communication. We assure you that.the appropriate talent and physical resources are committed to every project. The resumes of Psomas' key personnel are presented on the following pages. Tin Cheung * Air Quality; GHG,and Noise Manager PSOMAS Michael. Deseo Senior GIS Specialist Jennie Ramirez GIS Specialist jPSOMAS Key Staff Art Bashmakian, AicP Senior Planner Alia Hokuki,,AicP PSOMAS Megan Larum * Assistant Project Manager Sean Noonan, AicP Senior. Environmental Planner Jillian Neary Senior Environmental Planner Janet Powell Environmental Analyst PSONfAS j Jim Hunter PSOMAS Steve Norton * Senior Biologist PSOMAS Charles Cisneros,, MS, RPA* Senior Archaeologist Megan Larum. Cultural' Resources. Analyst PSOMAS. EDUCATION 1996/Masters of Urban Planning//University of California, Irvine 1991/BA/Development Studies/University of California, Los Angeles CERTIFICATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners/No. 112796/American Planning Association/112796 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association Association of Environmental Professionals Society of American Military Engineers FuturePort EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 8 years; with other firms for 18 years Alia Hokuki, AICP * Project Manager Alia Hokuki, AICP, serves as a Senior Project Manager of Environmental Planning projects. She has 26 years of experience in environmental and policy planning field with a focus on environmental impact assessments for public and private sector clients. Alia's expertise includes the preparation and management of environmental compliance documents pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. She has managed a variety of projects, including high density residential; senior living facilities; mixed-use; urban infill and redevelopment; commercial and retail developments; institutional (education and healthcare); and infrastructure projects. She has extensive knowledge of CEQA, NEPA, and planning and zoning law. Experience Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Environmental Impact Report - Newport Beach, CA: Project Manager for preparation of an EIR for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, which will consist of demolition of an existing 8,800 SF restaurant, and development of a three-story, approximately 85,000 SF assisted living facility (101 assisted living and congregate care units), associated ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. Key issues were the massing of the building; compatibility with surrounding land uses; aesthetics, including shade and shadow; and construction noise. Addressing community concerns was also a key element of the project. i Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - Huntington Beach, CA: Project Manager for the redevelopment of a 29 -acre site (within the coastal zone) with a mixed-use development consisting of a 230,000 -SF lodge that includes a maximum of 175 guest rooms and guesthouse -style, budget -oriented, family/group overnight accommodations with 4o beds, and ancillary resident- and visitor -serving retail and dining; up to 250 -unit for -sale residential village; 2.8 acres of Coastal Conservation area adjacent to Magnolia Marsh; and 2.6 acres of park. In addition, the Specific Plan designates the area adjacent to Magnolia Street as Open Space Park along the project site's entire eastern boundary. Gisler Residential Project IS/MND - Huntington Beach, CA: Project Manager for this project which involves construction of an 85 -unit single- family detached residential development on an approximately 13.9 -acre site with a density of 6.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The site is located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane and is surrounded by single-family residential to the north, east and west, and Gisler Park to the south. The Project site is currently developed with a'school campus and associated site improvements, which would be demolished to accommodate the Project. Duties included main contact for the City, providing consultation on approach and strategy, author of critical sections of the IS/MND, providing QA/QC, coordinating with project team, managing contract and invoicing. West Alton Parcel Development Plan EIR - Irvine, CA: Project Manager for the West Alton Parcel Development Plan Project located in the City of Irvine. The project proposes development of multi -family residential units across Alia Hokuki, AICP two Planning Areas, separated by the West Alton Wildlife Movement Corridor, with Continued) an average density of 30 dwelling units per acre. Each Planning Area will include opportunities for future residential uses. The project will require approvals by the County of Orange, as the CEQA lead agency, as well as a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change through the City of Irvine Street Lights Fullerton Project IS/ND - City of Fullerton, CA: Project Manager for an IS/ND for the proposed Street Lights Fullerton Project, located at 229 East Orangethorpe Avenue, within an existing shopping center (Fullerton Town Center), in the City of Fullerton. The Project involves'construction of an.in-fill mixed-use Project consisting of a 329 -unit, five -story residential building wrapping a 560 -space six -story parking structure; approximately 6,500 SF of retail on the ground floor; approximately 80,500 SF of open space including three outdoor courtyards, a pool, and outdoor gathering spaces on an approximately 4.47 -acre site. The existing commercial/retail uses and associated surface parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed Project. Addendum to the Queen of the Valley Hospital Specific Plan Program EIR: Phase 1- Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, Emergency Department/Intensive Care Unit - West Covina, CA: Project Manager for the addendum to the final PEIR. The project implements Phase 1 expansion of the Hospital. Phase 1 includes a 58,868 -SF MOB; a 4 -level, 398-sapce parking structure; and a 2 -story, 58,901 -SF ED/ICU and associated 235 on-site parking spaces to accommodate the patients' visitors. Cohen Property Specific Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration4 Orange, CA: Project Manager for the preparation of an IS/MND for a residential project .that involves demolition of the existing shopping center, surface parking, and site improvements and construction of 32 single-family detached, two story dwelling units; internal drive aisles; and common open space areas on the 2.9 -acre site. The project would provide 19,535 SF of common open space (17,972 SF of landscaping and 1,563 SF of open space at the center of the site) and 22,090 SF of allowable private open space for a total of 41,625 SF of usable open space. EI Toro, 100 -Acre Parcel Development Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - Irvine, CA: Project Manager for this project located in the City of Irvine at the southern edge of the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro adjacent to the Orange County Great Park. The project proposes a mixed-use, low -impact development, which proposes 2,103 residential units, 1.8 MSF of office uses, 220,000 SF of retail, and a 242 -room hotel. The project will maximize the benefit from its proximity to the Irvine Station, which includes a Metrolink Station and bus facilities. The project will require approvals by the County of Orange as the CEQA lead agency. In addition, the City of Irvine may consider a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Walnut Grove Specific Plan IS/MND - West Covina, CA:, Project Manager for the preparation of an IS/MND for a residential project that involves demolition of the existing vacant school and associated improvements and construction of a 158 -unit development on an approximately 9.14 -acre site. The project consists of two different types of residences: 66 units of detached single-family in a cluster configuration and 92 attached multi -family units. The project also provides a 0.27 -acre neighborhood park use and open space amenities including bench seating areas and trash receptacles; picnic areas; children's tot -lot area; open turf area; and connecting walkways. EDUCATION 1984/BS/Environmental Planning and Management/ University of California, Davis PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association of Environmental Professionals EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 6 years; with other firms for 30 years dim Hunter * Principal -in -Charge Jim Hunter has 36 years of experience providing strategic land use entitlement, environmental, and regulatory compliance to regional infrastructure, municipal agency, and utility clients across Southern California. He has managed the growth of consulting offices of engineers, planners, and scientists to deliver seamless client -centric solutions. Key experiences include leading high performing teams in the areas of CEQA and NEPA review and permitting; preconstruction planning; and construction compliance monitoring for major land development and capital infrastructure across Southern California. His experience includes Principal -in -Charge and Contract Manager for multiple - On -Call contracts including Los Angeles County Public Works Water Resources Branch, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Planning Services, and project specific work for a variety of complex projects. Experience Ranch Hills Community Environmental Impact Report - Orange County, CA: Principal -in -Charge and Project Manager for the preparation of an EIR for the project located on County of Orange property. The Project proposes a Zone Change, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the replacement of the existing private recreational club that was established in 1958 with the development of 17 buildings, consisting of 34 single-family townhome units and 3 single-family detached units. University of California, Riverside, On -Call Non -Project Specific Environmental Consulting Services - Riverside, CA: Contract Manager for Psomas' on-call contract with the University of California, Riverside for environmental consulting services. Recent work includes regulatory services for the Botanic Garden Basin Maintenance Project, tree surveys, and the Student Success Center IS/MND. University of California, Los Angeles Capital Programs On -Call Contracts 2015 to 2020 - Los Angeles, CA: Contract Manager for the current On -Call Contract through March 2020 with the University of California, Los Angeles for environmental services for Capital Programs improvements. Current Psomas work includes pre -construction nesting bird and raptor surveys for the Southwest Campus Apartments and Hilgard Faculty Housing IS/MND. North Business Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report - Westlake, CA: Team Leader for the Program EIR for the proposed North Business Park Specific Plan. The proposed Specific Plan would promote the revitalization of underutilized properties and the intensification and adaptive reuse of existing developments within a Zoo -acre planning area north of the Ventura Freeway, west of Lindero Canyon Road, and south of Thousand Oaks Boulevard. The Specific Plan proposes mixed use developments in three districts, two business park districts, two design districts, and an office district Megan Larum * Assistant Project Manager Megan Larum is an Assistant Project Manager with 12 years of experience in environmental documentation and analysis consistent with CEQA and NEPA. She has experience in cultural resources management and has participated in Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requests, records searches, and Phase I Cultural Resources Assessments. Experience The Affinity Project - Pasadena, CA: Environmental Planner for this project, which involves demolishing six of nine existing structures and redeveloping the 3.3 -acre project site located between 465 and 557 South Arroyo Parkway. An existing Whole Foods grocery store and two historic structures on the site would be retained and integrated into the project. The project consists of a 147,500 -SF, seven -story medical office building with ground floor commercial uses; and a 184 -500 -SF, eight - story assisted living facility that also includes 90 independent living units. Five levels of subterranean parking would be constructed. Street Lights Fullerton Development IS/MND;- Fullerton, CA: Environmental Planner for an IS/MND for the proposed Street Lights Fullerton Project, located at 229 East Orangethorpe Avenue, within an existing shopping center (Fullerton Town Center), in the City of Fullerton. The Project involves construction of an in -fill mixed-use Project consisting of a 329 -unit, 5 -story residential building wrapping a 560 -space 6 -story parking structure; approximately 6,500 SF of retail on the ground floor; approximately 80,500 SF of open space including 3 outdoor courtyards, a pool, and outdoor gathering spaces on an approximately 4.47=acre site. The existing commercial/retail uses and associated surface parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed Project. Among other discretionary actions, a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to allow for the mixed-use nature of the Project, are required. Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Environmental Impact Report - Newport EDUCATION Beach, CA: Environmental Planner for preparation of an EIR for the Harbor Pointe 2006/BS/Environmental Senior Living Project, which will consist of demolition of an existing 8,800 SF Policy Analysis and Planning/University of restaurant, and development of a three, story, approximately 85,000 SF assisted living California,Davis facility (101 assisted living and congregate care units), associated ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. Key issues were the massing of the building; compatibility with PROFESSIONAL surrounding land uses; aesthetics, including shade and shadow; and construction AFFILIATIONS noise. Addressing community concerns was also a key element of the project. Association of Environmental Gisler Residential Project IS/MND - Huntington Beach, CA: Environmental Professionals Planner for this project which involves constructionof an 85 -unit single-family EXPERIENCE detached residential development on an approximately 13.9 -acre site with a density of 6.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The site is located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane and With Psomas for 10 years; with other firms for 2 years is surrounded by single-family residential to the north, east and west, and Gisler Park to the south. The Project site is currently developed with a school campus and associated site improvements, which would be demolished to accommodate the Project. Duties included main contact for the City, providing consultation on approach and strategy, author of critical sections of the IS/MND, providing QA/QC, coordinating with project team, managing contract and invoicing. The Affinity Project - Pasadena, CA: Environmental Planner for this project, which involves demolishing six of nine existing structures and redeveloping the 3.3 -acre project site located between 465 and 557 South Arroyo Parkway. An existing Whole Foods grocery store and two historic structures on the site would be retained and integrated into the project. The project consists of a 147,500 -SF, seven -story medical office building with ground floor commercial uses; and a 184 -500 -SF, eight - story assisted living facility that also includes 90 independent living units. Five levels of subterranean parking would be constructed. Street Lights Fullerton Development IS/MND;- Fullerton, CA: Environmental Planner for an IS/MND for the proposed Street Lights Fullerton Project, located at 229 East Orangethorpe Avenue, within an existing shopping center (Fullerton Town Center), in the City of Fullerton. The Project involves construction of an in -fill mixed-use Project consisting of a 329 -unit, 5 -story residential building wrapping a 560 -space 6 -story parking structure; approximately 6,500 SF of retail on the ground floor; approximately 80,500 SF of open space including 3 outdoor courtyards, a pool, and outdoor gathering spaces on an approximately 4.47=acre site. The existing commercial/retail uses and associated surface parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed Project. Among other discretionary actions, a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change to allow for the mixed-use nature of the Project, are required. EDUCATION 2014/MS/Urban and Regional Planning/ California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 2011/MA/Geography/ California State University, Fullerton 2006/BA/History/University of California, Santa Barbara CERTIFICATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners/ American Planning Association/027853 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Institute of Certified Planners American Planning Association Association of Environmental Professionals EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 3 years; with other firms for 8 years Sean Noonan, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Sean Noonan has 11 years of environmental planning experience and has managed the CEQA, NEPA, and regulatory permitting processes for numerous roadways, highways, residential, commercial, and industrial projects throughout California. Sean has served as Environmental Project Manager for several projects, charged with developing technical studies, writing CEQA and NEPA environmental documents, processing projects through Caltrans Local Assistance and Division of Environmental Planning, obtaining regulatory permits, and maintaining environmental compliance through final design and project construction. Experience North Business Park Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report - Westlake, CA: Environmental Planner for the Program EIR for the proposed North Business Park Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would promote the revitalization of underutilized properties and the intensification and adaptive reuse of existing developments within a Zoo -acre planning area north of Interstate 101. The Specific Plan proposes mixed use developments in three districts, two business park districts, two design districts, and an office district that would accommodate the development of 1,017 new dwelling units and over 1. 6 million square feet of existing and future non-residential uses within a 129 -acre Focus Area, along with infrastructure improvements throughout the planning area. Carlsbad Veterans Park, Master Planning and Environmental Permitting Phase - Carlsbad, CA: Environmental Planner for providing professional services for new 91.5 -acre park. The developable area of the site was only 48 acres due to the presence of native vegetation preserves. The program for the project included active and passive recreation amenities, an open space interpretive area, public art, trails, utilities, parking, restrooms, and maintenance facilities. Psomas provided civil engineering, environmental, and surveying services for the Project Master Planning Phase and environmental permitting to result in final design concepts. More specifically, civil engineering master planning support services included development of project constraints, concept grading and utilities plans, CEQA level hydrology and stormwater management reports, traffic impact analysis, and hillside management plans. Huntington Plaza Mixed -Use Project - Arcadia, CA: Environmental Planner for this project, which consists of 139 residential units and 10,200 SF of groundfloor commercial uses. Given the location of this project in downtown Arcadia, this project involved a high level of coordination with the City and Applicant to develop a comprehensive description of haw the project would be constructed, including details such as staging, contractor parking, excavation and temporary shoring methods, and utility relocation. Psomas also prepared technical analyses in support of this project. EDUCATION 1997/BA/Geology/Indiana University -Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN CERTIFICATIONS Certificate of Completion for LEED for New Construction Technical Review Workshop/U.S. Green Building Council/ Certificate of Completion for Low Impact Development Seminar/ American Council of Engineering Companies/ EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 17 years; with other firms for 6years Jillian Neary Senior Environmental Planner Jillian Neary is a Project Manager with 23 years of experience in environmental analysis and land use investigation, including 20 years in the preparation of environmental compliance documents pursuant to CEQA, NEPA, and associated State and federal regulations. She has completed documentation for both private- and public -sector clients throughout Southern California and on a wide range of projects, including tract map and master planned communities, infill development and redevelopment, General Plan updates, commercial and industrial developments, recreation projects, and flood control and water supply projects. Experience South Pasadena General Plan/Downtown Specific Plan Update & 2021- 2029 Housing Element Program (EIR) - South Pasadena, CA: Project Manager for this Program EIR which involves a comprehensive update to both the 1998 South Pasadena General Plan and the 1996 Mission Street Specific Plan MSSP). The proposed General Plan Update will serve as a long-term policy guide for decision-making regarding the appropriate physical development, resource conservation, and character of the City and establishes an overall development capacity for the City through the year 2040. Integra Perris Distribution Center EIR - Perris, CA: Environmental Planner for the preparation of an Addendum for this project, which involves the expansion of the Integra Perris Distribution Center (IPDC) to include an approximately 10.2 -acre parcel located immediately southwest of the IPDC site. The expansion would allow for the construction of a 273,000 -square -foot warehouse building, attached to the west end of the existing IPDC building. University of California, Riverside, Student Recreation Center Expansion Project IS/MND - Riverside, CA: Assistant Project Manager for this project, which involved a new 71,147 -gross -square -foot Student Recreation Center building and partial renovation of an existing Student Recreation Center building. Additionally, the IS/ND addressed improvements to the outdoor Recreation Complex, including construction of an outdoor swimming pool/spa and deck area, a new sand volleyball court, and new tennis courts. Jillian served as the primary author of the IS/MND, performed site reconnaissance, and prepared all required notices and the Final MND. City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report - Rancho Cucamonga, CA: Environmental Planner for this project, which involved an update to the 2001 General Plan, providing guidance for future development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence over the next 15 to 20 years. Adoption of the proposed General Plan Update allows for an increase in development potential throughout the City and the addition of transit -supported, mixed-use development along the City's main transportation corridors. Jillian prepared the hydrology, climate change, air quality, and utilities analyses, including outreach to affected utility agencies. EDUCATION 1984/BA/Economics/ Syracuse University CERTIFICATIONS California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Practice Certification/University of California, San Diego/ CertifiedProfessional Services Marketer/Society for Marketing Professional Services/ PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association for Environmental Professionals, Orange County (OCAEP) TRAINING AEP Essentials Workshop Association for Environmental Professionals EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 12 years; with other firms for 0 years anet Powell Environmental Analyst Janet Powell has 12 years of experience with Psomas' Environmental Services Group in various roles including environmental analyst, project coordinator, technical editor, and environmental proposal writer/marketer. Janet has earned a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Practice Certification from the University of California, San Diego, and has extensive knowledge of CEQA and regulatory requirements. In her role as an environmental analyst, she has worked on a variety of project types including residential, healthcare mixed- use, commercial, infrastructure (public works), and transportation. Experience Gisler Residential Project IS/MND - Huntington Beach, CA: Environmental Analyst for the Gisler Residential Project IS/MND. The Project involves construction of an 85 -unit single-family detached residential development on an approximately 13.9 -acre site with a density of 6.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The site is located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane and is surrounded by single- family residential to the north, east and west, and Gisler Park to the south. The Project site is currently developed with a school campus and associated site improvements, which would be demolished to accommodate the Project. Janet prepared Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Hydrology and Water Quality; Mineral Resources; Recreation, Public Services, and Wildfire. Stanton Town Center Specific Plan IS/MND - Stanton, CA: Environmental Analyst for an IS/MND for the City of Stanton as a subconsultant to KTGY. The City envisions an updated Specific Plan with a concept to identify potential development opportunities in light of the needs of the community. As part of the plan, the goal is to improve and maintain existing commercial and industrial areas, enhance Beach Boulevard, redevelop the City's Main Street, and allow for commercial/retail, mixed-use, and residential projects that would provide approximately 1,50o new single- and multi -family units. Janet prepared Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality; Mineral Resources; Public Services; Recreation; and Utilities and Service Systems. Street Lights Fullerton Development IS/MND - Fullerton, CA: Environmental Analyst for an IS/MND for the proposed Street Lights Fullerton Project, located at 229 East Orangethorpe Avenue, within an existing shopping center (Fullerton Town Center), in the City of Fullerton. The Project involves construction of an in -fill mixed-use Project consisting of a 329 -unit, five - story residential building wrapping a 560 -space six -story parking structure; approximately 6,500 SF of retail on the ground floor; approximately 80,500 SF of open space including three outdoor courtyards, a pool, and outdoor gathering spaces on an approximately 4.47 -acre site. The existing commercial/retail uses and associated surface parking lots would be demolished to accommodate the proposed Project. EDUCATION 1993/BA/Geography and Environmental Studies/ University of California, Santa Barbara CERTIFICATIONS Dust Control Supervisor/ South Coast Air Quality Management District/ SC2102-010331-1.0351 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Association of Environmental Professionals EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 5 years; with other firms for 23 years Tin Cheung * Air Quality, CHG, and Noise Manager Tin Cheung has 28 years of experience conducting air quality, climate change, noise, and vibration studies for CEQA and NEPA compliance. His experience includes preparing air pollutant emissions inventories, dispersion modeling, climate change, and health risk assessments using a variety of computer data models. He is also proficient in conducting noise and vibration studies for stationary and mobile sources. His project experience includes analyses of large-scale infrastructure, residential, commercial, industrial, educational, energy, and recreational uses. He has extensive knowledge of impact assessment methods established by USEPA, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and local air quality management districts. Tin has also performed third -party reviews for technical adequacy and CEQA compliance in support of legal efforts. Experience Eastern Municipal Water District, Murrieta Road Transmission Pipeline Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Menifee, CA: Air Quality and Noise Manager for the IS/MND to construct and operate a 36- to 42 -inch -diameter water transmission line from the Perris II Desalter Complex Desalter) in the City of Menifee approximately 1.33 miles south, mostly in the Murrieta Road right-of-way, to La Piedra Road, where the proposed pipeline will connect to an existing 36 -inch -diameter water main in La Piedra Road. Los Angeles International Airport Runway Safety Area Construction Emissions Analysis - Los Angeles County, CA: Air Quality Lead for, this project. Tin was responsible for conducting the regional emissions inventory, localized criteria hotspot analysis,. and HRA for 350 construction subphases related, to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) runway length requirements; runway repaving; and demolition/reconstruction of ground support equipment facilities. University of California, Los Angeles, Long Range Development Plan Amendment (2017) and Student. Housing Projects Subsequent EIR - Los Angeles, CA: Air Quality and Noise Manager for the preparation of the SEIR for UCLA's LRDP Amendment and Student Housing Projects. The project involved an amendment to the existing LRDP, which would add 1,500,000 GSF designated for student housing to meet the housing guarantees identified in the Student Housing Master Plan 2016-2026. Inglewood Oil Field Specific Plan Project Environmental Impact Report - Culver City, CA: Air Qualitynand Noise Manager for the preparation of an EIR for a Specific Plan that sets forth, safeguards and regulations on oil and gas extraction activities in Culver City. The project site is adjacent to the Newport -Inglewood Fault and contains an Alquist-Priolo Fault splay. Up to 30 new wells would be allowed as well as associated storage tanks and pipelines, with requirements and restrictions to ensure the health and safety of the surrounding residential, recreational, and commercial land uses. EDUCATION 2008/MS/European Archaeology/University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom 2004/BA/Anthropology/ California State University, Los Angeles CERTIFICATIONS Registered Professional Archaeologist/ Register of Professional Archaeologists/1512280 Orange County Certified Archaeologist/Orange County Riverside County Certified Archaeologist/Riverside County EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 5 years; with other firms for 13 years Charles Cisneros, Ms, RPA * Senior Archaeologist Charles Cisneros is a registered professional archaeologist with 18 years of experience in archaeological assessment and field experience in California and Nevada. He has directed numerous field projects in support of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Charles has managed a wide range of projects involving archaeological survey, testing, data recovery, monitoring, and laboratory analysis. His training and background meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology and he is a California Energy Commission approved archaeologist for desert archaeology. Experience Mt. San Antonio College, 2018 Educational and Facilities Master Plan Environmental Impact Report - Walnut, CA: Senior Archaeologist for implementation of the 2018 Educational and Facilities Master Plan, which serves as Mt. SAC's long-range development plan, over a to -year horizon period. The plan was evaluated in the EIR at a program level with the expectation that additional analyses may be required as specific projects are proposed. Charles was the cultural resources lead. UCR Student Success Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Riverside, CA: Senior Archaeologist for the preparation of an IS/MND's Student Success Center, a new 3- to 4- story facility with a maximum building capacity of 80,000 gross square feet (GSF), and approximately 1,070 general assignment classroom seats. The IS/MND was tiered from UCR 2005 Long -Range Development Plan EIR and the 2005 Long -Range Development Plan Amendment 2 EIR. Charles Cisneros was responsible for task management and provided senior oversight and support to the IS/MND analysis for cultural resources. Perris Circle Industrial Building 3 Project, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Perris, CA: Senior Archaeologist to support the IS/ MND for this project, that ties from the Perris Valley Commerce Center Specific Plan EIR. The project involves construction and operation of a 210,900-sf industrial warehouse, office uses, and employee recreational spaces on a 9.9 - acre site. Charles prepared the Phase I Cultural and Paleontological Resource Inventory and led Native American outreach. City of Los Angeles, Glendale -Hyperion Complex of Bridges Improvement Project - Los Angeles, CA: Senior Archaeologist for the Project Report and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) for rehabilitation of this complex of six bridges. Improvements include widening the Glendale Boulevard bridges; realigning the I-5 northbound off- and on -ramps and Los Angeles River bike path; adding a median barrier on the Hyperion Avenue Viaduct, traffic signals, utility relocation, drainage system improvements, and improving pedestrian facilities including the Red Car pedestrian bridge and the Sunnynook pedestrian loop trail. EDUCATION 2001/BS/Environmental Biology and Management/ University of California, Davis CERTIFICATIONS Scientific Collecting Permit/SC-007207/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife/SC- 007207 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS The Wildlife Society, Western Section Western Bat Working Group EXPERIENCE With Psomas for 12 years; with other firms for 10 years Steve Norton * Senior Biologist Steve Norton is a Senior Project Manager and Senior Biologist with 22 years of experience conducting biological studies on wildlife, plants, and ecological processes throughout California. His technical experience includes biological resource assessments, natural plant communities mapping, regional conservation plan consistency analyses, biological resource policy compliance management, and technical writing for CEQA/NEPA compliance. Steve has experience with a wide variety of projects, including commercial and residential development, transportation, regional and municipal infrastructure, and extensive electrical utility infrastructure. Steve has conducted protocol -level presence/absence surveys in occupied habitat for various special status species, including the desert tortoise, arroyo toad, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, least Bell's vireo, and a score of annual and perennial plant species. Experience 1-15 Express Lanes Project — Eastvale and Jurupa Valley, CA: Biological Resources Manager for this project which will add a toll lane to I-15 in both north- and south -bound directions in northwestern Riverside county. Psomas is conducting bi-weekly monitoring, visits at the portion of the project that extends over the Santa Ana River. Services include documenting and monitoring the occupancy status of artificial bat roosts installed as mitigation and participating in the monthly bat roost emergence surveys. Eastern Municipal Water District, Wellhead Treatment Facility Constraints Analysis and IS/MND (Well. 56) — Perris, CA: Biologist for an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and related technical analyses to evaluate the impacts of the construction of a wellhead treatment facility for the purpose of removal of perfluorcoctonoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). A constraints analysis was prepared to evaluate several potentiallocations for the proposed wellhead treatment facilities. The site options were reduced to five feasible alternatives and Psomas prepared the CEQA documentation to fully evaluate each alternative. City of Anaheim, Groundwater Treatment Plants Phase B and Groundwater Supply Wells IS/MND and CEQA-Plus Documentation — Anaheim, CA: Biologist for the preparation of an IS/MND and supplemental CEQA-Plus Documentation for the installation of ion -exchange groundwater treatment systems at the five locations in the City of Anaheim. The ion - exchange systems are intended to remove perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) from groundwater. Two new groundwater supply wells would be installed at one location and additional wells would be rehabilitated due to age. Psomas prepared a mitigated negative declaration for this project and completed additional technical studies to comply with CEQA- Plus guidelines pursuant to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund requirements. EDUCATION 2011/MA/Urban and Regional Planning/ California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 2005/BA/Political Science and Public Policy/University of California, San Diego CERTIFICATIONS GIS Certificate of Performance/San Diego Mesa College, 2013/ EXPERIENCE Michael Deseo Senior GIS Analyst Michael Deseo is a Senior Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analyst with 10 years of experience in GIS. He has assisted in the preparation and completion of mapping projects for public agencies, private sector companies, and non-profit organizations. His set of skills includes spatial and geostatistical analyses; surface modeling and interpolation; three-dimensional (3D) modeling with shade and shadow analysis; batch geocoding; digitizing; data collection; data editing; and high-quality cartographic design. Michael creates and edits map documents and graphic exhibits using a variety of software including ArcGIS, Adobe Photoshop, and Adobe Illustrator. Experience Tesoro del Valle, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report - Valencia, CA: GIS Analyst for the development of Phases A, B, and C of the Tesoro del Valle residential project north of Santa Clarita in unincorporated Los Angeles•County. The project involves the continued development of the Tesoro del Valle project that was originally approved for development in 1999 and proposes development of up to 820 residential units and ancillary recreational uses. A Supplemental EIR is being prepared to update the analysis and address changes to the project. Michael assisted in the preparation of maps and graphics in support for the SEIR. With Psomas for 7 years; Environmental Support Services for the San Diego Creek Project Site with other firms for 3 years Irvine, CA: GIS Technician for the San Diego Creek Reach II Operations and Maintenance Project. The project site consisted of approximately 1.25 miles along San Diego Creek from the I-405 Freeway to Campus Drive. The project involved vegetation clearing of the soft -bottom channel of San Diego Creek to help with flood control. Michael created field maps for data collection, biological resource locations, and map graphics. Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report - Huntington Beach, CA: GIS Analyst for the redevelopment of a 29 - acre site (within the coastal zone) with a mixed-use development consisting of a 230,000 -SF lodge that includes a maximum of 175 guest rooms and guesthouse - style, budget -oriented, family/group overnight accommodations with 40 beds, and ancillary resident- and visitor -serving retail and dining; up to 250 -unit for -sale residential village; 2.8 acres of Coastal Conservation area adjacent to Magnolia Marsh; and 2.6 acres of park. Also, the area adjacent to Magnolia Street is designated as Open Space Park. Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Environmental Impact Report - Newport Beach, CA:•GIS Analyst for preparation of an EIR for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, which will consist of demolition of an existing 8,800 SF restaurant, and development of a three-story, approximately 85,000 SF assisted living facility (101 assisted living and congregate care units), associated ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. Michael assisted in the shade and shadow analysis and numerous high-quality maps and graphics in support of the document. EDUCATION Bennie Ramirez 2021/MS/Geographic City of Los Angeles, CA: GIS Technician for the project approval and Information Science/ GIS Specialist California State University, a multi -modal corridor that is safe and accessible for people walking, biking, Long Beach Jennie Ramirez is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Specialist with 2016/BA/Philosophy and five years of experience in GIS. Jennie received her Masters degree in GIS Geography/California State from California State University, Long Beach. Her recent project experience University, Long BeachUniver includes utilizing ArcGIS, Adobe Illustrator and ArcGIS Collector to create andApplied2020/AGeographic Information edit map documents and graphic exhibits for various client projects that meet Systems/Rio Hondo cartographic and data collection needs. Her set of skills include data collection, College, Whittier digitizing, managing data, spatial analysis and cartographic design. 2013/AA/General Studies/ Rio Hondo College, Whittier previous -Experience CERTIFICATIONS Eastern Avenue Multi -Modal Transportation Improvement Project Geographic Information City of Los Angeles, CA: GIS Technician for the project approval and Systems/Rio Hondo College environmental document phase to re -envision 1.5 miles of Eastern Avenue as a multi -modal corridor that is safe and accessible for people walking, biking, EXPERIENCE taking .transit, and driving to employment centers, education facilities, With Psomas for 1 years; with other firms for 4 years health care facilities, parks, and recreational centers. The project involves a robust community engagement process and will have features that include new signalized intersections, lighting upgrades, pedestrian safety crossing improvements, bicycle infrastructure, landscape elements, and upgrades to transit stops. Jennie is responsible for cartographic map and graphic exhibits using GIS and vector editing software, for use in reports and documentation. Arroyo Seco Water Reuse Project - City of Pasadena, CA: GIS Technician for this project which involves GIS mapping and graphic production support of environmental documentation. Jennie is responsible for GIS data creation and database management, digitizing biological resources and jurisdictional features, and the creation of field maps for data collection. Jennie is also responsible for the preparation of maps and site photographs to accompany various reports. Pacoima Reservoir Restoration Biological Resources Surveys/Reports, Los Angeles County Public Works - Los Angeles County, CA: GIS' Technician for this project. Psomas is responsible for conducting biological resources surveys and preparing the associated reports. The surveys are based on the initial phase area above the dam and include additional new areas at the northern extent of the project area. Jennie is responsible for mapping and graphic production support for a variety of biological reports, using GIS mapping and vector editing software. Jennie is also responsible for the preparation of field maps to support data collection, GPS post -processing, digitizing biological resources, and conducting overlay and spatial analysis in the GIS. Alton Parkway Off Site Services, OC Public Works - Orange. County, CA: GIS Technician for this project which involves GIS mapping and graphic production support of environmental documentation. Jennie is responsible for GIS mapping and geospatial data management, including digitizing, analyzing and calculating biological resources. She prepares maps and graphics to accompany a variety of reports and documents. Jennie is also responsible for the preparation of field maps and formulating transects for field surveys. 0 Overview of Task As with many jurisdictions, the City of Seal Beach is faced with the need to balance the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels with the concern of the community regarding the pace and density of new development. Maintaining and enhancing the existing quality and providing an adequate housing supply for existing and future residents is critical for the continued economic vitality of the City. Similar to a number of neighboring cities, Seal Beach is virtually built out. Recognizing the need for additional housing in light of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) It has been my requirement of 1,243 units, the recently adopted Housing Element identifies 11 sites that need to be rezoned to accommodate a total of 1,543 units. The existing pleasure working commercial uses with a zoning designation of Commercial are proposed to be with Psomas on rezoned as Mixed -Use zone, which would allow commercial as well as residential uses with a density of up to at least 40 units per acre. In addition, and apart several challenging from the identified sites, certain sites within the City would be permitted a projects. Theyhave higher density that would result in an increased number of units. been veryresponsive Existing housing in Seal Beach consists of a mix of single-family and multi- family units with a large number of the population being long-time residents. and met all submittal Many of the residents are seniors who have spent most of their lives in the City and would appreciate options to remain in this coastal community known for deadlines. Their its hometown appeal. commitment to client Psomas understands the redevelopment of the Old Ranch Country Club service and high would assist in meeting the City's regional housing needs goals and provide a beneficial addition to the community by providing an independent/assisted quality is evident living facility, a senior housing complex, and associated facilities that would in CEQA documents cater to the needs of the residents of the proposed community. that theyproduce. Project Understanding In my opinion, they Considering the City's housing needs, as discussed above, the existing Old Ranch Country Club site and the development as proposed would provide an set the gold standard opportunity to meet some housing needs of the senior segment of the City's for environmental population. Psomas understands the owners (Applicant) of the Old Ranch Country Club (ORCC Club), located at 3901 Lampson Avenue, seek to prepare a consultants. Psomas Specific Plan for the existing and future uses of the existing Club. The Club is surrounded by Lampson Avenue that curves along the eastern, southern, and staffare good people southwestern boundaries of the site; Seal Beach Boulevard to the west; existing to work with." commercial development to the northwest; and the Joint Forces Training Base JFTB) —Los Alamitos to the north. James Campbell The site is currently developed with a 30,000 SF clubhouse, 12,000 SF of meeting Special Projects Manager space, an 18 hole golf course, wedding venue, pool, maintenance area, a 2 -wayCEORealEstate County ofOrange Executive Office driving range, and surface parking with 394 spaces. The site currently has a Zoning designation of Recreation/Golf (RG). The Specific Plan proposes development of new and expansion of existing facilities, which would include a 103 -unit, 3 -level (83,415 SF) independent/ assisted living facility; a new 4,250 SF relocated maintenance building; a 51 - unit (96,955 SF), 3 -level senior housing complex including 25,340 SF of medical office; a reconfigured driving range from 2 -way to a 2 -level 1 -way driving range; 3 -level parking structure with 591 stalls with 4 tennis courts on the top level; clubhouse pool and related accessory features (21,000 SF); 3 -level clubhouse addition of 109,015 SF consisting of overnight accommodations of 150 rooms with pool, restaurant, and bar/lounge. Additionally, the Project would include new connecting drive aisles/streets, surface parking areas, and landscaping. Other improvements related to recontouring of the golf course and changes pertaining to the flood plain easement and drainage reconfiguration would also occur. Environmental. Analysis Approach Psomas proposes to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) inaccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000-21177) and the.State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387). A PEIR would be the appropriate CEQA document due to the potential for significant environmental impacts. Additionally, a program -level as opposed to a project -level EIR is appropriate.for the Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan Project, as it will accommodate tiering future projects to streamline the entitlement process. The PEIR will "focus out" the topical issues and environmental checklist questions that may not be applicable and, thus, not require detailed evaluation in the PEIR. However, if detailed, sufficient project -level information is available for all components of the Project at this time, a project -level EIR can be considered as the appropriate CEQA document. The approach will be further discussed in detail at the kick-off meeting. For purposes of this proposed, the CEQA document is referenced as a Program, Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). A detailed discussion of the scope of work is included under Work Plan on page 20 of the proposal. Psomas believes in a holistic approach toward project management and client satisfaction, in addition to meeting the requirements of the technical scope of services. General Approach Regardless of the type and size of a project, Psomas believes in a holistic approach toward project management and client satisfaction, in addition to meeting the requirements of the technical scope of services. One of the components of this approach is developing and maintaining a collaborative client relationship. Psomas is committed to fostering trust -based client relationships that will last well beyond any single project. Building upon the notion of this relationship is establishing aline of communication thatfacilitates data sharing, project information updates, and schedule and cost maintenance. We will rely on the expertise and knowledge of City staff as much as they will rely on our capabilities in managing the environmental documentation process. In light of this approach, Psomas envisions a synergistic working relationship with the City that would enable the process to progress efficiently, while facilitating exchange of ideas; knowledge gathering; transfer of information; and partnering on the common objective of completing successful environmental documents, on time, and within budget. Additionally, and more specifically, we embrace the following steps in our process: Establish a communication protocol with City staff and technical leads, and other key team members, to ensure project -critical information is efficiently and accurately conveyed across the team Ensure roles/responsibilities are clear for efficient management of assignments andquality control of services and deliverables P. Utilize experienced staff with extensive relevant experience who will do the job right the first time Agree on initial project schedule and budget with City staff and a protocol for updating status on both during all project phases Determine key project description details with the City and Applicant early to facilitate accurate and consistent peer reviews and analyses Verify that technical approach/scope of services as conveyed in the proposal still meets City expectations following completion,of project description Collaborate up front with the City on standard templates for project deliverables Implementation Plan Important to the successful delivery of a project is implementing our scope of work, schedule, and cost controls in compliance with the requirements and to the satisfaction of the City. Completing projects successfully will strengthen the City's trust in Psomas. Therefore, the longevity of our relationship will depend on successful implementation of the scope of work on schedule and within budget. In order to avoid potential issues, the Project Manager will be responsible for closely monitoring the status of these three key components. Implementation Strategies Best Practices The environmental documentation needs of every project are unique and depend on the type and size of the project, existing conditions, potential impacts, and public controversy, among other factors. However, regardless of the type and size of projects, best practices espoused by our project team will facilitate the environmental process on future projects. Technical Solutions: one of the strengths of the Psomas Team is taking the time in the beginning of the project to develop a thorough project description that correctly reflects details of project construction and operation. Upon completion and approval by the City, the project description will be shared with the Psomas technical leads. Based on our experience, a solid and stable project description can serve to avoid later revisions to the environmental document analyses and related technical studies. Project Controls Scope of Work. The scope of work for most projects influences the budget and schedule. Upon project kick-off, the scope of work will be further discussed with the City and project team and better defined. As the scope of work will direct the action items for all tasks proposed, it is imperative that it be kept updated The environmental and any changes in approach and direction are reflected in the scope of work., The scope of work will be communicated with the City at regular intervals documentation needs to facilitate solutions to potential issues, as applicable, before they become of every project are impediments to completing the project. unique and depend on Schedule. An agreed-upon master schedule will be used to monitor progress on key milestones and deliverables. The schedule will be updated, as needed, and the type and size of distributed to the project team. As the project status is updated in the master schedule, an appropriate corrective plan of action will be developed to address the project, existing variances, with the goal of getting the tasks back on schedule. Additionally, conditions, potential in order to ensure the project schedule is maintained, we have established workload management systems, monitoring techniques, and internal staffing impacts, and public arrangements to assist in meeting project schedule. Psomas also uses Microsoft controversy, among Project, as appropriate, to track how key milestones and deliverables relate. The mechanisms in place and the diligence of our Project Manager will ensure the other factors. project stays on schedule. Budget. The budget is another key component that will be closely monitored and, controlled by the Project Manager. Assigned hours and costs for each task will be communicated with.the Psomas Team to ensure that hours allocated for those tasks are aligned with performance. Psomas uses a comprehensive system Deltek Vision) for tracking and reporting employee time and project costs. The Project Manager has real-time information regarding total authorized budget, costs expended to date, current expenditures, and the remaining balance. Access to accurate, complete data will allow our Project Manager to alert the City to potential budget implications if issues arise. Implementation Strategies Best Practices The environmental documentation needs of every project are unique and depend on the type and size of the project, existing conditions, potential impacts, and public controversy, among other factors. However, regardless of the type and size of projects, best practices espoused by our project team will facilitate the environmental process on future projects. Technical Solutions: one of the strengths of the Psomas Team is taking the time in the beginning of the project to develop a thorough project description that correctly reflects details of project construction and operation. Upon completion and approval by the City, the project description will be shared with the Psomas technical leads. Based on our experience, a solid and stable project description can serve to avoid later revisions to the environmental document analyses and related technical studies. Additionally, the Project Manager will closely monitor the content of technical studies/analyses to keep the City apprised of the progress and any issues that may arise. If potential constraints and impacts are Psomas has a identified, Psomas will alert the City to avoid impacts and required mitigation, whenever feasible. company -wide Furthermore, one of the key roles of the Project Manager will be quality assurance/ to provide ongoing guidance and strategic consultation to the City regarding new regulations affecting proposed projects. Problem - quality control solving and creative discussions help to streamline the process for the committee that environmental documents. Pride In -House Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC): Psomas is is called committed to providing high quality technical documents that engender in Performance" client satisfaction, meet the needs of the project, and withstand legal scrutiny. Therefore, conducting in-house QA/QC reviews concurrent with the goal of with the preparation of written technical documents is a critical part of maintaining the our delivery of technically sound and legally defensible environmental documents. In fact, Psomas has a company -wide quality assurance/ culture of `quality" quality control committee that is called "Pride in Performance" with the throughout the firm. goal of maintaining the culture of "quality" throughout the firm. Alia Hokuki, our Project Manager, is the Environmental Planning group's Alia Hokuki, our representative to the committee. Project Manager, is Our QA/QC process begins with the assignment of staff members with the appropriate technical expertise and experience. All work products the Environmental are prepared with the oversight and review of an assigned technical lead. Planninggroups Upon completion of the first internal draft, it is reviewed by the Project Manager for consistency with the project description, compliance with representative to our approved scope of work, and technical accuracy. Upon revisions, it the committee. is sent to our in-house technical editor for review of grammar, proper nomenclature, references, and methodological consistency. The last step is a thorough and complete word processing review. Only then is the document submitted to the City for review. You [Alia] are the best, most responsive, and take -charge PM I have ever worked with. You are excellent at reminding the whole team that we need to stay on schedule. You remain verypleasant and professional even in the most stressful times. What more could anyone ask for? " Ricky Ramos Principal Planner City of Huntington Beach Work Plan Psomas proposes to prepare a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Division 5, Chapter 3, Section 15000-15387). A PEIR would be the appropriate CEQA document due to the potential for significant environmental impacts. Additionally, a program -level as opposed to a project -level EIR is appropriate a Specific Plan Project, as it will accommodate tiering future projects to streamline the entitlement process. The PEIR will "focus out" the topical issues and environmental checklist questions that may not be applicable and, thus, not require detailed evaluation in the PEIR. However, as indicated previously, if sufficient level of detail is available for the project and its components, a project -level EIR would be appropriate. This issue will be further discussed at the kick-off meeting. TASK 1- PROJECT INITIATION Subtask 1.1 Kick -Off Meeting Psomas will attend a kick-off meeting with the City, the Applicant, and the Project team, as appropriate. This meeting will provide an opportunity to discuss the approach to preparing the environmental document; further define the scope of work; identify and discuss the key community issues and concerns, as applicable; and identify information needs. The Project schedule will be discussed, and key milestones defined. It is assumed that available Project information, as applicable, would be provided at this meeting. Subtask 7.7 Deliverables Attendance at the kick-off meeting Subtask 1.2 Data Collection and Site Visit Psomas will prepare a Data Needs Request to obtain data related to Project construction and operational activities' that are needed for the technical analyses (e.g., Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas [GHG] Emissions, Energy, and Noise) contained in the PEIR topical sections. Psomas will review existing City documents, including but not limited to the City of Seal Beach General Plan 2003); Seal Beach Municipal Code and Zoning (Title 11); and other pertinent City documents. Additionally, Psomas will conduct a site visit to assist in the description of the environmental setting and to photographically document the site and surrounding area. Subtask 7.2 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of Data Needs Request Subtask 1.3 Project Description Psomas will prepare a Project description, appropriate for a PEIR and a Project of this nature. The Project description will include, but not be limited to, Project objectives; site plan and other plans (e.g., circulation plan, grading plan, open space plan, landscape plan, utilities plan), as available; infrastructure and wet and dry utilities; and any other features unique to the Project that are integral to the analysis of the environmental impacts. Upon completion, Psomas will provide the Project description to the City and Applicant for review.. Psomas will revise the Project description to address the comments received and, upon approval by the City, provide it to the technical team for preparation of the studies/analyses. Subtask 1.3 Deliverables Electronic Copies (email) of Draft and Final Project Description TASK 2 - PEER REVIEW OF APPLICANT -PREPARED STUDIES/REPORTS We understand that the Applicant's consultants have prepared studies/reports, including Biological Resources, Arborist (Assessment of Eucalyptus Windrow), Geotechnical, and Traffic. Upon Project kick-off and receipt of the said studies/ reports, Psomas' Project Manager and technical experts will conduct peer reviews of the studies/reports for adequacy and compliance with CEQA. Upon review of the studies/reports, a memorandum will be prepared and submitted to City staff summarizing the comments and recommendations of the Project Manager and technical experts on each study/report. The findings of the final studies/reports—if comments and recommendations result in revising the studies/report—will be incorporated into the topical sections of the PEIR. If additional studies/reports are prepared by the Applicant at a later date and provided to Psomas for peer review and incorporation into the PEIR, a budget augment will be required for the additional peer review. Subtask 2 Deliverables Electronic Copies (PDF and MS Word) of Peer Review Memorandum TASK 3 - INITIAL STUDY/NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING MEETING Subtask 3.1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation Psomas will prepare an Administrative Draft Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) for review by the City and Applicant. If it can be adequately documented that there would be no Project impact on a topic, that topic will be "focused out" of the PEIR. For other topical issues, there may be specific checklist questions that would have no impact and could be focused out. Psomas will also prepare the NOP, which will provide an overview of the Project; Project objectives; alternatives to be evaluated; and expected required permits. The NOP will also serve as a Scoping Meeting notice. Upon completion, the Draft IS/NOP will be submitted to the City and Applicant. Psomas will revise the IS/NOP to address the comments received and prepare a Public Review Draft IS/ NOP for approval prior to the 30 -day public review. Psomas will revise and distribute the IS/NOP based on the City's distribution list. Psomas will also prepare a Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the NOP. The IS/NOP and the NOC will be filed with the County Clerk and posted on the State Clearinghouse (SCH) website. It should be noted, as preparation of a EIR has been determined, the City may decide not to prepare an IS and only circulate the NOP for 30 days. This would reduce the schedule and cost accordingly. Subtask 3.1 Deliverables Electronic Copies (email) of the Administrative Draft and Public Review Draft IS/NOPs Electronic Copies (CDs) of IS/NOP for Public Review Subtask 3.2 Public Scoping Meeting Psomas will attend one (i) EIR Scoping Meeting during the 3o -day public review of the IS/NOP. It is assumed the City will organize the Scoping Meeting at a venue of their choice. If requested by the City, Psomas will describe the environmental process in preparing the PEIR. This scope of work assumes that Psomas will prepare Scoping Meeting materials (i.e.; handouts, sign -in sheets, comment cards/sheets). If requested, Psomas can prepare a PowerPoint presentation for the Scoping Meeting. Subsequently, Psomas will document the meeting and prepare a summary of the meeting for inclusion in the PEIR. Subtask 3.2 Deliverables Electronic• Copies (email) .of Scoping Meeting Materials Electronic Copy of the PowerPoint Presentation Electronic Copies (CDs) of IS/NOP for Public Review Attendance at Scoping Meeting TASK 4 - DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Subtask 4.1 Administrative Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Psomas will prepare an Administrative Draft PEIR in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and pertinent case law. The analysis will be based upon the IS/NOP comments received; community and agency input at the Scoping Meeting; technical evaluation of the proposed Project; and pertinent data. Psomas' approach to preparing PEIR sections is provided below. Executive Summary: Psomas will summarize the Project location, Project description, areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, summary of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. Introduction: The Introduction will include Project background and history; the purpose of the PEIR; the environmental issues assessed in the PEIR; the environmental review process; and organization of the PEIR. This section will also summarize the scoping process and include a general overview of the existing environmental setting of the site and the surrounding area. Project Description: Psomas will,prepare an in-depth and detailed Project description based on Project information in coordination with the City and Applicant. This section will include Project location, Project objectives, intended uses of the PEIR, discretionary actions, Project components and characteristics. Environmental Analysis: Each topical PEIR section will contain a discussion of existing conditions; the regulatory framework; applicable Project design features (if proposed) and regulatory requirements; significant environmental effects; and mitigation measures, if required. Aesthetics. The analysis in the PEIR will qualitatively assess the potential visual changes that could occur in the future in comparison with the existing views of the site. The site has been developed into a golf course, a clubhouse, and associated uses and is surrounded by existing single-family residential, commercial, and retail land uses beyond the abutting roadways in addition to the Los Alamitos. The existing visual character of the sites and surrounding areas and visibility of the sites will be described and documented through ground level photographs. Photographs of the site will be taken from different vantage points and incorporated into the discussion and analysis. The potential impacts emanating from the changed light and glare associated with the proposed Project will also be analyzed in the PEIR, especially in relation to the surrounding land uses that may be sensitive to light. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Agricultural and Forest Resources. The site has been developed and is surrounded by existing residential, commercial, and retail land uses. The Project site is not being used, nor anticipated to be used, or zoned for agricultural purposes; it is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; and it does not contain Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Additionally, no forest land occurs on the Project site or in the surrounding area. Air Quality. Psomas will develop air quality analysis based on a review of the Project plans, traffic study, and related Project data. Psomas will prepare a Data Needs Request for the Project team to provide general data relative to construction phasing, building energy use, stationary sources, and Project features related to air quality for the level of information available for the Specific Plan. Based on the information provided, Psomas will draft reasonable worst-case scenarios for anticipated construction activities (i.e., type of construction, construction start and completion dates) and long-term operations to be used as the basis of the air quality modeling. Psomas will conduct the air quality analysis consistent with the SCAQMD's recommended methods for CEQA analyses and will evaluate the Project's contribution to regional emissions to the air basin, as well as localized concentrations to uses proximate to the Project site. For the regional emissions analysis, Psomas will calculate the Project's construction and operational criteria pollutant regional (mass) emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Model results will be compared with the SCAQMD's CEQA regional emissions thresholds to determine the Project's potential impacts to the air basin's regional emissions. For the analysis of potential impacts to the local area proximate to the Project site, the SCAQMD requires that project -related construction emissions be evaluated against the localized significance thresholds LSTs). LSTs are used to determine whether sensitive uses near the Project site are exposed to air pollution that exceeds the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). For the operations phase of the Project, it is expected that a qualitative analysis will demonstrate that the Project would not generate traffic congestion at a major intersection at a magnitude that would cause a local carbon monoxide (CO) "hotspot". Thus, no dispersion modeling is included in this scope of work for CO analysis. Project area exposure to construction phase toxic air contaminants (TACs) and odors will also be addressed qualitatively. Additionally, the analysis will include an evaluation of Project conformity with the Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Project site is located proximate to the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos (jFTB). Aircraft and ancillary facilities operating from this facility may result in criteria and toxic air pollutant exposure to the Project site. The Interstate 405 freeway is also located directly to the south of the Project site. Vehicle exhaust from the freeway would also contribute to air pollutant exposure at the Project site. Depending on the intensity and duration of project related construction activities and the proximity of these activities to existing residential uses, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) may be necessary to address these environmental impacts. As an optional task, Psomas can conduct a HRA for the exposure of the Project site to both freeway and aircraft emissions, as well as the health risk associated with the Project's construction activities. The cost for the HRA is dependent on a broad array of factors and will be provided, if requested by the City. CEQA generally requires an analysis of potential project related impacts to the environment and not the effects of the environment on the Project site. It is noted that, upon Project initiation, we propose to have a discussion with the City regarding the most appropriate air quality approach. It is important to minimize any potential public comments in regard to technical adequacy of the analysis. The findings of the analysis will be provided as a section within the PEIR, and the model results will be included as an appendix. Biological Resources. The proposed project site is within a highly developed area of the City of Seal Beach. The 154 -acre site is developed with a golf course and associated uses. Based on review of the aerial photograph, there are rows of Eucalyptus Windrow throughout the golf course. A Biological Resources and Arborist Study have been prepared by the Applicant's consultants, which will be provided to Psomas for a peer review and use in the PEIR. It is assumed that a literature review has been conducted as part of the Biological Resources Study to determine which species have been identified as special status by State, federal, and local resources agencies and organizations and have a potential to occur within the vicinity. It is also assumed that the Biological Resources Study analyzes the potential impacts to nesting birds and raptors during Project construction and include mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts pertaining to nesting birds and raptors. Upon, review of the said studies, the findings will be summarized in the Biological Resources section of the PEIR document, and the studies will be included as appendices in the PEIR. The scope of work does not include focused surveys or a jurisdictional delineation. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. Psomas will submit a request to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South -Central Coastal Information Center SCCIC) to conduct a records search for the Project site, including a half mile search radius surrounding the Project site. The SCCIC currently estimates two (2) to three (3) months from the date of request to receive the results of the records search. Additionally, Psomas will request the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conduct a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) database for the Project site. Psomas will provide tribal consultation support as needed to the Lead Agency to fulfill the agency -to -agency consultation requirements for both Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Senate Bill is (SB 18). AB 52 requires a Lead Agency/City to provide formal notification to tribal representatives that are traditionally and culturally affiliated to the geographic area where a project is located. This task assumes preparation of up to eight (8) letters on the City's letterhead; one (1) round of review by the City; and up to four (4) hours of telephone consultation in concert with the City, as needed, to consult with the Tribes. The tribal representatives have 30 days to request consultation upon receiving the AB 52 notification letter. Psomas can provide further support related to tribal consultation, such as additional meetings, minutes, or additional site visits, subject to a scope and budget augment. In addition to AB 52, the Project must comply with SB 18 requirements for a Specific Plan. Psomas will provide support to the City to fulfill the agency -to -agency consultation requirements under SB 18. This includes assisting with the California Native American Tribal consultation; preparing 12 notification letters sent from Psomas on behalf of the City; one (1) round of review by the City; preparing a contact log documenting outreach to the Tribes, and up to three (3) hours of telephone consultation in concert with the City, as needed, to consult with the Tribes. The Tribal representatives have 90 days to request consultation upon receipt of the SB is notification letter. Psomas can provide further support related to SB 18 consultation, such as additional meetings, minutes, or additional site visits, subject to a budget augment. The results of the records searches and tribal consultations will be compiled and described in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the PEIR. If potential significant' impacts to resources are identified, Psomas will recommend mitigation measures to address those impacts. It should be noted that this scope of work does not include a cultural resources pedestrian field survey. If requested by the City, a field survey will be conducted subject to a budget augment. Energy. Psomas will develop an energy analysis for the Project, which will include a discussion of regulatory setting, energy demands, Project energy efficiency measures, impact assessment, and any necessary mitigation measures. The regulatory setting will include a discussion of the local, State and federal policies and regulations that apply to the Project. The discussion of Project related energy demands include quantification of anticipated energy consumption from the operations phases. Construction phase energy demand is due to diesel and gasoline consumption during the development of the Project. The operations phase of the Project would consume energy. related to lighting and heating needs as well as vehicle trips. Potential impacts will be assessed relative to Project consistency with those policies and measures related to energy efficiency and conservation within the City of Seal Beach's General Plan and the State of California Energy Efficiency Standards. Mitigation measures, if needed, will be discussed relative to any measures needed to reduce significant energy impacts. Geology and Soils. We understand a Geotechnical Study has been prepared by the Applicant's consultant, which will be provided to Psomas for use in the PEIR. Psomas will review the study and incorporate the summary of the findings in the Geology and Soils section of the EIR and include the study as an appendix in the PEIR. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Additionally, Psomas will request a paleontological resources records search and literature review for the Project site from the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Museum provides a letter summarizing information on geological formations and known paleontological localities (if any) near the Project site, and a determination of the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units underlying the site. The findings will be summarized in the Geology and Soils section of the PEIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Psomas will prepare a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis. The quantitative Project analysis will use the data and scenarios, developed for the air quality analysis and assumptions for the Project's anticipated electricity, natural gas, and water usage. Psomas will calculate construction and operational GHG emissions concurrently with the air quality emissions using CalEEMod. Psomas will compare the change in GHG emissions with criteria that have been recommended by the SCAQMD or a threshold determined in coordination with City staff. Psomas will also determine whether implementation of the Project would conflict with applicable State, and regional policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing air pollutant and GHG emissions. The proposed Specific Plan will be evaluated for consistency against the goals and policies established within the City of Seal Beach's General Plan. Mitigation measures'that reduce construction and operations phase impacts will be identified, as necessary. If regional and/or local construction or operations phase emissions exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, Psomas will work with the City to determine feasible mitigation measures. The findings will be provided as a section within the PEIR, and the model results will be included as an appendix. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Psomas will contract with Environmental Data Resources (EDR) to complete a radius search of hazardous materials databases. Psomas will summarize the findings of the report in the hazards and hazardous materials section of the PEIR and qualitatively address other potential impacts pertaining to hazards, including impacts related to chemical transport, storage, and handling; airport hazards, as applicable; emergency response and emergency evacuation plans; and wildland fires. The analysis will also include a detailed discussion of proximity to the Joint Forces Training Base -Los Alamitos and potential impacts pertaining to safety concerns. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. The report will be included as an appendix in the PEIR. For demolition of existing structures, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) may be required and prepared by the Applicant's consultant and prepared to Psomas for use in the PEIR. A Hydrology Study and Water Quality. It is assumed that hydrology in addition to a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be provided by the Applicant's civil engineers. The information/reports will be reviewed, and the findings will be summarized in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the PEIR. Additionally, the issues pertaining to recontouring of the golf course to accommodate a change in the flood plain easement of the site and recon -figuration of the drainage basin that serves residential community of College Park East will be discussed and analyzed. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Land Use and Planning. Psomas will describe the existing condition of the site and the surrounding land uses based on a site visit (Task 1.2) and review of the relevant available documents and information and analyze the Project's compatibility with the surrounding uses. Consistency with planning documents relevant to the proposed Project, including the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) (August 17, 2017), will be discussed. Psomas will also evaluate the proposed Project's consistency with relevant local and regional planning policies, including, but not limited to, the City of Seal Beach General Plan policies; Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) regional planning policies; and other relevant policy documents. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Mineral Resources. The Project site is development and is within an urbanized portion of the City of Seal Beach. There are no areas within the site containing known mineral resources appropriate for mineral extraction. Psomas will address the lack of mineral resources on the site. Noise. Psomas will analyze temporary noise and vibration impacts from construction activities and will also review the Project plans, design, and traffic impact analysis to evaluate operational noise impacts to sensitive receptors. To characterize the existing noise environment, four (4) long-term (24-hour) noise measurements will be taken within the project area to document existing noise level exposure at the Project site from the primary noise sources in the area (I-405 freeway, Seal Beach Boulevard, and JFTB). Noise contours will also be taken from the Installation Compatible Use Zone (ICUZ) and AELUP. Project related impacts will be assessed for the construction and operations phases of the Project. Construction noise and vibration will be assessed based on values provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Federal Transit Administration FTA). Operations phase noise sources would include noise generated by Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) units, parking lot activities, recreational uses, and vehicular trips accessing the Project site and local roadways. The analysis will compare noise impacts with the standards in the City's General Plan and Noise Ordinances. Increases in traffic noise on local roadways will also be quantified using the Federal Highway Administration's RD -77-108 traffic noise model. The assessment of potential, impacts to proposed noise sensitive Project uses will consider consistency with the State of California's Title 25 interior residential noise limits, the City's exterior noise/land use compatibility guidelines, AELUP and Airport Land Use Commission ALUC) guidance, and CEQA court decisions that affect aircraft noise exposure (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland). Mitigation measures that reduce construction and operations phase impacts from the Project will be identified, as necessary. Project site noise exposure and any needed mitigation will be consistent with the City's Noise Element of the General Plan and the AELUP. If regional and/or local construction emissions exceed the noise thresholds of significance, Psomas will work with the City to determine feasible mitigation measures. The results will be provided as a section in the PEIR and will include summaries of noise terminology, applicable noise regulations, ambient noise environment, and increases in existing noise levels. The supporting calculations will be included as an appendix. Population and Housing. The Population and Housing section of the PEIR will evaluate and analyze the direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project pertaining to population, housing, and employment. The analysis will also take into account the population, housing, and employment projections for the Project area using the latest demographic data and address the forecasted growth and Project's consistency with regional and location growth assumptions. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Public Services and Recreation. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate increased demand for public services, such as fire and police protection services, and parks. Since the Project includes senior and assisted living residents, an increased demand for schools is not anticipated. The potential effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project are related to the provision of adequate service levels and the need to upgrade and/or provide additional facilities to serve the proposed Project. Psomas will coordinate with the service providers to identify existing public service facilities and capacities and determine whether the proposed Project can be adequately serviced without any increase in personnel or expansion of existing resources, including facilities. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Transportation. We understand a Traffic Study has been prepared by the Applicant's consultant, which will be provided to Psomas for use in the PEIR. Psomas will review the study and incorporate the summary of the findings in the Transportation section of the PEIR and include the study as an appendix in the PEIR. If impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed to reduce the impacts. Utilities and Service Systems. Implementation of the proposed Project would generate increased demand for wet and dry utility services (e.g., water, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, electricity, gas, telephone, and cable). The potential effects associated with implementation of the proposed Project are related to the availability of adequate supply to meet the increased demand of the proposed Project. Psomas will coordinate with applicable utility providers to obtain the necessary information regarding existing capacity, supply, and future demand from the proposed Project. It is assumed that information regarding water and sewer will be provided by the Applicant's civil engineers and will be used in the analysis of potential impacts. It is assumed that preparation of a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) would not be required. Wildfire. Psomas will discuss the Project's location relative to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention-CalFire) and assess the Project's potential impacts related to proximity to a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Cumulative Impacts: In addition to the analysis of potential short- and long-term Project -specific impacts, Psomas will conduct a cumulative impact analysis based on the provisions of Section 15130(b)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Psomas will coordinate with City staff to obtain a list of related projects. The evaluation method will vary depending on the technical issue to be addressed. For each technical section, the cumulative study area will be defined and used for the assessment of the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. Alternatives: Psomas will provide an assessment of alternatives to the proposed Project. These alternatives will be based on the requirements of CEQA and discussions with City staff. This scope of work assumes that up to three (3) development alternatives and a No Project Alternative will be evaluated. Required CEQA Topics: Other CEQA-required sections include long-term impacts; significant irreversible environmental changes; significant unavoidable adverse impacts, as applicable; growth -inducing impacts; references; agencies and persons consulted; and preparers and contributors. Upon completion, Psomas will submit the Administrative Draft PEIR and technical appendices for review and comment by the City and Applicant. Subtask 4.1 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of the Administrative Draft PEIR Subtask 4.2 Public Review Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Upon receipt of comments from the City and Applicant, Psomas will review the comments, revise the document accordingly, and prepare the Public Review Draft PEIR for a final review before distribution. This task assumes that no new technical analyses or new quantitative analyses will be required. If conflicting or unclear comments are received, Psomas will coordinate with the City and Applicant to resolve any issues. Subtask 4.2 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of Public Review Draft PEIR Subtask 4.3 Draft Program Environmental impact Report This scope of work assumes that only minor editorial revisions to the text of the Public Review Draft will be required, and no substantive revisions to any technical analyses will be necessary. Psomas will revise the document, as necessary, and prepare the Draft PEIR. Psomas will also prepare a NOC and a Notice of Availability (NOA) for City's review and approval prior to distribution. Psomas will distribute the Draft PEIR (CDs), including Technical Appendices along with the NOA, for a 45 -day public review period, using a distribution list to be provided by the City. Additionally, Psomas will mail out copies of the NOA to the surrounding property owners (radius to be determined by the City and mailing labels to be provided by the Applicant). Psomas will electronically submit the Draft PEIR, the NOC, and NOA to the SCH, as they no longer accept hard copies, and will file the NOC and NOA with the County Clerk. Subtask 4.3 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of the Draft PEIR Up to Five (5) Hard Copies of the Draft PEIR Electronic Copies of the Draft PEIR, NOC and NOA to the SCH Electronic Copies (CDs) of the Draft PEIR for Distribution to Agencies Hard Copies of the NOA for Distribution to Surrounding Property Owners Filing the NOC and NOA at the County Clerk TASK 5 - FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Subtask 5.1 Administrative Draft Final PEIR and Response to Comments Following the 45 -day public review period, Psomas will review the comments received and meet with the City to discuss the approach. Psomas, with assistance from the Project team, will prepare responses to comments that raise significant environmental issues. Revisions to the Draft PEIR that result from the comments will be identified in a Revisions and Clarifications Section Errata) of the Responses to Comments (RTC). It is assumed that Psomas will spend approximately 4o hours of technical staff time on this task. If it is determined that additional effort will be necessary, or if late comment letters are received that raise significant issues, a budget augment may be required. Subtask 5.1 Deliverables Electronic Copy (PDF) of Administrative Final PEIR and RTC Subtask 5.2 Public Review Final Program Environmental Impact Report and RTC Following the City's review of the Administrative Final PEIR and RTC, Psomas will revise the responses and compile the Final PEIR and RTC and coordinate with the Project team on the revisions. The revised Final PEIR will be submitted for a final review by the City prior to mailing responses to public agencies at least 10 days prior to a decision on the Final PEIR, as required by CEQA. Additionally, Psomas will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD) to be signed by the City upon certification of the Final PEIR and action on the Project. Psomas will file the NOD with the County Clerk and the SCH. The cost estimate does not include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) filing fees and County Clerk processing fee. It is assumed the Applicant will provide a check for payment of these fees at the time the NOD is filed. Subtask 5.2 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of Final PEIR and RTC Electronic Copies (CDs) of the Final EIR and RTC for Distribution to Commenting Agencies Electronic Copies (email) of the Draft and Final NOD r Filing, the NOD at the County Clerk Posting the Final PEIR and NOD at the SCH Subtask 5.3 'Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Through the course of PEIR preparation, if mitigation measures are identified, in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, Psomas will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as part of the Administrative Final PEIR and RTC document. The will be prepared in matrix format and will provide the timing and responsibility for each mitigation measure. The MMRP can be provided as stand-alone document and will be submitted for review with the Administrative Draft PEIR. Per the City's RFP, the PEIR will be included in the Draft MMRP. It should be noted that, later during the public hearings, if the Planning Commission or City Council modify the Project and/or recommend standard conditions of approval/ mitigation measures for the proposed Project, Psomas will revise the MMRP. However, substantial modifications to the MMRP are not assumed in the scope of work and fees for the Project. Subtask 5.3 Deliverables Electronic Copy (email) of the Draft and Final MMRP Subtask 5.4 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations As part of the Final PEIR, Psomas will prepare the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, if applicable, for the Project pursuant to Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. The draft and final version of the Findings will be submitted to the City for review and approval. Subtask 5.4 Deliverables Electronic Copies (email) of the Draft and Final Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration (if applicable) TASK 6 - PROSECT MANAGEMENT, MEETINGS, AND PUBLIC HEARINGS Subtask 6.1 Project Management Psomas will be responsible for managing the CEQA process for the City. This includes ongoing coordination with the City, the Applicant, and Project team to ensure compliance with the scope of work and schedule and to ensure that information is disseminated, as necessary. Subtask 6.1 Deliverables Project Management and Coordination throughout the Life of the Project Subtask 6.2 Project Meetings and Conference Calls This task includes attendance at two (2) coordination meetings, as necessary, As the process for with the City, the Applicant, and the Project team (in addition to the Project EIRs becomes more kick-off meeting and Scoping Meeting). This scope of work also assumes four (4) conference calls. The Project Manager will attend/participate in challenging and all meetings and conference calls (four (4) hours for a meeting, including complex with time, Preparation and travel time and one (1) hour for a conference call). We Alia's dedication understand that meetings may be in person or virtual at the discretion of it takes a person of City staff. Additional meetings/conference calls will be billed on a time-and- Alia's tenacity to materialsbasis, based on hourly rates and subject to prior approval. move the document Subtask 6.2 Deliverables through the process. o -Two (2) Meetings with the City, the Applicant, and Project team Four (4) Conference Calls with the City, the Applicant, and Project team We.(ShopoffRealty) are verypleased with Subtask 6.3 Public Hearings Alia's dedication Psomas will attend up to three (3) public hearings (i.e., Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council). Psomas will be available and efforts helping to provide advice. and input to the City and address questions regarding CEQA; us through this the environmental review process; and the findings of the PEIR analyses, as appropriate. This task assumes public hearings will be attended by the complex process." Project Manager and up to two (2) Psomas technical staff. The supporting staff in attendance will be based on the issues that arise out of the public review process. Additional public hearing attendance will be billed on a time and James O'Malley Vice President, Development materials basis, based on hourly rates and subject to prior approval. ShopoffRealty Investments, LP Subtask 6.3 Deliverables Three (3) Public Hearings (i.e., Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council) PROSECT SCHEDULE This scope of work assumes an approximate 12 -month schedule, upon receipt of final information for the Project description. The 12 -month schedule for the preparation of the document does not include the approval process for the PEIR. Psomas will work diligently and coordinate closely with the City and Project Team to ensure the PEIR is completed efficiently, on time, and within budget. All time -saving approaches will be utilized to accelerate the schedule. However, Psomas will ensure that time -saving approaches will not jeopardize the quality of the document. 1.1 Kick -Off Meeting (virtual or in-person) Week 1 1 Day 1.2 Data Collection and Site Visit Weeks 1 and 2 2 weeks 1.3 Prepare Project Description Weeks 3 and 4 2 weeks City review of the Draft Project Description Week 5 1 week Finalize Project Description Week 6 1 week 3 weeks Applicant -Task. 2 - Peer Review of The following studies/reports have been prepared and will be Weeks 7 through 9 provided to Psomas: Biological Resources Arborist (assessment of Eucalyptus Windrow) Geotechnical Study Hydrology Report Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Traffic Study Prepare Peer Review Memoranda Week 10 2 days City Review of Memoranda Week 10 3 days Finalize Studies/Reports per Psomas Comments, if any I Weeks 11 and 12 2 weeks Task 3 - Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) and Scoping Meeting 3.1 Prepare Administrative IS/NOP, Notice of Completion Weeks 11 through 13 3 weeks NOC), and Notice of Availability (NOA) City Review of the Administrative IS/NOP, NOC, and NOA Weeks 14 and 15 2 weeks Prepare Pre -Print IS/NOP, Notice of Completion (NOC), and Weeks 16 and 17 2 weeks Notice of Availability (NOA) City Review of the Pre -Print IS/,NOP, NOC, and NOA Week 18 1 week Finalize IS/NOP for Public Review, NOC, and NOA Week 19 1 week IS/NOP 30 -day Public Review Period Weeks 20 through 23 30 days 3.2 Conduct Public Scoping Meeting During week 20 or 21 1 day Task Proposed ScheduleDuration Task 4 - Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft PEIR) 4.1 Prepare Administrative Draft PEIR Weeks 20 through 26 7 weeks City Review of Administrative Draft PEIR Weeks 27 through 29 3 weeks 4.2 Prepare Public Review Draft PEIR Weeks 30 through 32 3 weeks City Review of Public Review Draft PEIR Weeks 33 and 34 2 weeks 4.3 Prepare Draft PEIR, NOC, and NOA Weeks 35 and 36 2 weeks City Review of Draft PEIR, NOC, and NOA Week 37 3 days Prepare Draft PEIR for public review Week 37 2 days Draft PEIR Public Review-Mandatory 45 days Weeks 38 through 43 45 days ProgramTaskS: Final ..Report 5.1 - Prepare Administrative Final PEIR and Response to Weeks 43 through 45 3 weeks Comments (RTC)/Revisions/Clarifications City Review of Administrative Final PEIR and Responses Weeks 46 through 48 3 weeks to Comments (RTC)/Revisions/Clarifications 5.2 - Prepare Public Review Final PEIR, RTC/ Revisions/ Weeks 49 and 50 2 weeks Clarifications, and NOD City Review of Public Review Final PEIR, RTC/ Revi-sions/ Week 51 1 week Clarifications, and NOD Prepare Final PEIR, RTC/Revisions/Clarifications, and NOD Week 52 1 week and distribute to commenting agencies 5.3, 5.4 - Prepare Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Weeks 46 and 48 3 weeks Considerations Prepare Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP)/Prepare Notice of Determination (NOD) City Review of Findings of Fact and Statement of Weeks 49 and 50 2 weeks Overriding Considerations City Review of MMRP/City Review of NOD Finalize Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Week 51 2 weeks Considerations Finalize MMRP File. NOD Upon certification of 1 day the Final EIR Task 6* Project Management, Meetings/Conference Calls, and 63 Project Management Public Kearings Duration of the Project 6.2 Project Meetings (two meetings, not including the Kick- TBD Off meeting) and Conference Calls 6.3 Public Hearings (Airport Land Use Commission, Planning TBD Commission, and City Council) Relevant Projects and References Highlighted here are descriptions of Psomas' experience in successfully providing similar services. Each project includes a reference who can attest to Psomas' quality of services, capabilities, and competence in managing complex projects. Magnolia Tank Farm Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report Huntington Beach, CA I City of Huntington Beach RELEVANCE TO THIS PROJECT Coastal City Residential/Hotel Project Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report Peer Review of Applicant -Prepared Studies REFERENCE City of Huntington Beach Ricky Ramos Senior Planner, Department of Community Development 714.536.5624 rramos@surfcity-hb.org PSOMAS PROJECT DATES 06/2017 -12/2019 Magnolia. Tank,Fartn Project Site Psomas prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) pursuant to CEQA for the Magnolia Tank Farm Project. Psomas worked closely with the City in preparation of the NOP, draft and final EIRs, and Responses to Comments. In addition, Psomas conducted a Scoping Meeting and a Planning Commission Study Session. The project site is located within the Coastal Zone, adjacent to Magnolia Marsh in the City of Huntington Beach. The project site previously contained three oil storage tanks that were demolished in 2017. The Draft PEIR evaluated two development alternatives at an equal level of consideration. The alternatives were identified as the proposed project (mixed-use) and Alternative i residential). Under the proposed project, the Specific Plan will establish a land use plan and develop standards and guidelines to allow for creation of the proposed mixed- use development comprised of a 211,000 SF lodge/guest house accommodations with a maximum of 215 rooms, including 175 guest rooms and family/group overnight accommodations with 40 rooms; 19,000 SF of ancillary and visitor - serving retail and dining; and up to 250 for -sale residential units (at 15 dwelling units per acre). Additionally, the proposed project includes 2.8 acres of Coastal Conservation area adjacent to Magnolia Marsh and 2.8 acres of park. Alternative 1 would eliminate the lodge, guesthouse, and retail components, and would include a residential development at a maximum of 250 residential units (at 11 dwelling units per acre). All other components, including park and open space described above under the proposed project, would remain the same. Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Environmental .Impact Report Newport Beach, CA I City of Newport Beach RELEVANCE TO THIS PROJECT Coastal City Senior Assisted Living Environmental Impact Report Peer Review of Applicant -Prepared Studies REFERENCE City of Newport Beach Benjamin Zdeba Senior Planner 949.644.3253 bzdeba@newportbeachca. gov PSOMAS PROJECT DATES 03/2016 - 2/2019 HarborPointe Senior Living. Facility Psomas prepared the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, which is an in -fill senior assisted living and memory care community. The project will involve demolition and removal of the existing approximate 8,800 SF restaurant and associated parking, and construction of an approximately 85,000 SF, three-story assisted living facility, including 101 convalescent and congregate care units (120 beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. The proposed facility would include living rooms, grill, bistro, dining rooms, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, and housekeeping. Outdoor amenities such as interior courtyards, a walkway around the structure, and a roof garden on the third level are also proposed. The key issues are the massing of the building; compatibility with surrounding land uses; aesthetics, including shade and shadow; and construction,noise. Addressing community concerns is also a key element of the project. Psomas worked corroboratively with the City of Newport Beach in preparation of the document and conducted a scoping meeting. Psomas presented at the study sessions and public hearings. Harbor Pointe Conceptual Plan West Alton Parcel Development Plan Environmental Impact Report Irvine, CA I Lowe Enterprises, Inc. I Orange County RELEVANCE TO THIS PROJECT Environmental Impact Report In-Fill/Redevelopment Peer Review of Multiple Applicant - Prepared Studies REFERENCE County of Orange James Campbell Special Projects Manager CEO Real Estate 714.227.1011 James.campbell@ocgov. com TSUMMARY Z. r. j Project Site Plan PSOMAS PROJECT DATES Psomas prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the West Alton 06/2016 - 6/2018 Parcel Development Plan located on County of orange -owned property within the City of Irvine. The project site is located in Planning Area 51, which generally encompasses the former Marine Corps Air Station El Toro (MCAS El Toro). The project site is 44.16 acres, including the Wildlife Movement Corridor and Orange County Flood Control District drainage outlet structures, which together occupy 11.84 acres. The project proposes an 803 -unit, in -fill, multi -family residential development across two planning areas, with 573 units in Planning Area 1 and 230 units in Planning Area 2. of the total, 112 units (14 percent) will be committed to affordable housing and 8 units (1 percent) will be dedicated as transitional units. The development is proposed with an average density of 25 dwelling units per acre. Each Planning Area will include a network of parks and open spaces that will provide recreational opportunities for future residential and a defensible space for wildfires. The West Alton Parcel Development Plan includes development standards and/or design guidelines that will establish parameters for all future development on the 1 project site. 7 Project Entry Cross -Section Gisler Residential Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Huntington Beach, CA I City of Huntington Beach RELEVANCE TO THIS PROSECT Environmental Impact Report In-Fill/Redevelopment Peer Review of Multiple Applicant - Prepared Studies REFERENCE City of Huntington Beach Ricky Ramos Senior Planner, Department of Community Development 714.536.5624 rramos@surfcity-hb.org PSOMAS PROJECT DATES 2/2021 - 6/2022 GislerResidentla[ProjguSite Plan The project involves construction of an 85 -unit single-family detached residential development on an approximately 13.9 -acre site with a density of 6.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The site is located at 21141 Strathmoor Lane and is surrounded by single-family residential to the north, east and west, and Gisler Park to the south. The project site is currently developed with a school campus and associated site improvements, which would be demolished to accommodate the project. The project includes a hierarchy of plant materials including trees, vines, shrubs, and turf throughout the project site. A 0.23 -acre passive open space area is provided in the southeast corner of the site and will be planted with turf and vertical trees at its perimeters. Additionally, the project includes improvements to the Gisler Park to the south. The improvements include, but are not limited to, the replacement of the existing concrete pathway that runs throughout the linear park and the replacement of existing tot lot play area. The proposed residential units will be in compliance with the strict Building Efficiency Standards — Title 24 mandated in the 2019 code update. The Ritz Carlton Residences Project - Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report Newport Beach, CA I City of Newport Beach RELEVANCE TO THIS PR03ECT Coastal.City In-Fill/Redevelopment Peer Review of Multiple Applicant - Prepared Studies REFERENCE Matthew Schneider Principal Planner City of Newport Beach 949.644.3219 mschneider@newportbeachca.gov PSOMAS PROJECT DATES 12/2021 to 03/2022 The Ritz Carlton Residences Project-Addendur[r to the City of Newport Beach General Plan IUpdateEnvironmentalimpactReport Psomas prepared an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update EIR pursuant to CEQA for the Ritz -Carton Residences Project within the 9.53 -acne VEA Newport Beach, A Marriott Resort and Spa. The project proposes conversion Of up to 36 percent of the existing 532 hotel rooms to hotel branded residences. The existing southernmost building, Harbor Landing, would be demolished to accommodate construction of the new residential building. The demolition of the Harbor Landing building and interior reconfiguration of the Harbor Point building would result in reduction of 159 hotel units (i.e., removal of 133 units from Harbor Landing and reduction of 26 units of 153 units from,Harbor Point). The new 22 -story building would include 159 hotel branded residences, but the total units would remain at 532. The new building is proposed to be up to approximately 295 feet in height, including rooftop appurtenances. The hotel parking would be provided at a 6 -level (4 levels subterranean and 2 levels above ground), 403 -space parking structure, which will replace the existing parking structure. For the hotel branded residences, a new 5 -level, 429 -space subterranean parking structure would be constructed adjacent to the new building. The proposed project site would include extensive landscape and hardscape areas with pedestrian circulation. The conceptual landscape plan would include,a hierarchy of plant materials including trees, vines, shrubs, and turf throughout the project site and irropen space areas. Additionally,,a new 8,000-square-foot.event lawn would be located along the southern boundary of the property near the new residential building and hotel pool area. The new event lawn would be used for outdoor events with the added function as a terminus for the fire access road. PSOMAS 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 714.751.7373 www.Psomas.com Balancing. the Natural and Built Environment April 25, 2022 splanner@sealbeachca.gov Art Bashmakian, AICP Project Manager CITY OF SEAL BEACH Community Development Department 2118th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Cost Proposal for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Bashmakian: Psomas is in receipt of the City of Seal Beach's (City's) Request for Proposal (RFP) for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Old Ranch Country Club Specific Plan (Project or proposed Project). Psomas submits the attached Cost Proposal under separate cover. We appreciate the opportunity to propose on this interesting and important project, -and we look forward to collaborating with the City and the Applicant on a successful CEQA EIR process. As a Vice President, Jim Hunter, is authorized to sign the City of Seal Beach's Professional Services Agreement for Psomas. As Project Manager for this contract, Alia will be the primary contact person responsible for day-to-day management for the environmental services pursuant to the City's RFP. Please contact Alia by phone at 714.481.8055 or by email at Alia.Hokuki@Psomas.com should you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, PSOMAS Jim Hunter Vice President Alia Hokuki, AICP Senior Project Manager 5 Hutton Centre Drive Suite 300 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Tel 714.751.7373 www.Psomas.com l?.siln,,,., Y..4 g=8 8 88 8888800 8888 SSS 0O88001F' Z C il P IL Z Lu sInArd it F E p 2 p nU2tl m8 a'f m CD U O o C Oa La a 6. N fJ 9 y- as F 95 c e F F G F C V 7 c 9. L Y. i ..R• ,.z'.i; .. '; & i; r 8 c 5 a t m EU1. zQyo Y• s. XdP:•.y'e: w `;., ."_ .: F' ] o i 6 0. a U J z i s O ii IE- 0. F"'•"'rr7;-.a r•gx'F^k..'h _.. g..Rr LyG F y Z FN 4'nT." r•,q,'nJ;;. w `4's ,#? s O o a i r N e a ,z y.y. ,X:y;:',;C,4N,•x.... d`>m: Fi a 0 3 a m s a' 3 ti figrs F f'. it LyV YS' $in; _.:.'':tis4+.y; A•:":;e td a Z O to i eY" F H F F F F 5 VISKf icri Agenda Item D AGENDA STAFF REPORT DATE:July 14, 2025 TO:Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU:Patrick Gallegos, City Manager FROM:Iris Lee, Director of Public Works SUBJECT:Proposition 218 Protest Public Hearing – Water Rate and Sewer Rate Adjustments ________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY OF REQUEST: 1. That the City Council conduct a public hearing to accept comments on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, 2. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, that the City Council adopt Resolution 7668 responding to timely filed written objections to the proposed water and sewer rates pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 2257; and, 3. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed water rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7669 establishing the water rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 4. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed sewer rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7670 establishing the sewer rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 5. Receive and file the Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study, prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., dated June 17, 2025, as presented to the City Council at this meeting and on file in the office of the City Clerk. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Background: The City’s Water and Sewer utilities are funded by fees received from the ratepayers, also known as Water Enterprise and Sewer Enterprise funds, respectively. The majority of associated expenditures, such as operating and maintenance costs, capital improvements, and reserves are funded through rate-funded revenues, and not the General Fund. Page 2 2 0 9 4 Rates are regularly evaluated as part of the City’s annual budgeting process to ensure projected revenues are sufficient to cover all Water and Sewer utility- related expenditures. The City’s last rate adjustment and cost of service study was approved in February 2021; however, the rates are no longer sufficient to balance ongoing operating costs. The City retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (Raftelis) to conduct a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study (2025 Financial Plan), utilizing the existing rate structures, to develop a financial plan and proposed rates for the water and sewer utilities. The objective of the 2025 Financial Plan is to ensure revenues are sufficient to pay or provide for operation and maintenance, capital improvement projects, adequate debt service coverage ratios, and sufficient reserves. The 2025 Financial Plan considered reserve policies, capital investment requirements for the aging infrastructure to ensure system reliability, inflationary cost increases, current and future State mandates, and health and safety requirements. On May 12, 2025, an overview of the draft 2025 Financial Plan, including analysis results and recommendations for proposed water and sewer rate adjustments, was presented to the City Council. Water Utility System: The City owns and maintains a water system and is responsible for ensuring safe and reliable water for potable and fire protection use. These essential services are accomplished through a strategic combination of highly qualified operators and administrative support staff, which includes City departments such as the Public Works Department, City Manager’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, and the Finance Department. Together, the water system’s two (2) reservoirs, two (2) booster stations, four (4) production wells, 73.5 miles of pipeline, and over 5,300 services are properly maintained. Based on Raftelis’ detailed financial plan analysis, the February 2021 rate adjustments are no longer sufficient to balance the operating costs due to: 1. Increased wholesale import and groundwater costs; 2. Aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance; 3. Overall inflationary impacts; and, 4. On-going introduction of new legislation. Water Enterprise Fund Reserve Policy: The water rates have been constructed with a financial plan that corrects the structural deficit and sufficiently funds operations, capital and reserves. A reserve policy was set based on the types of risk the utility faces. Operating Reserves – to cover day-to-day expenses and maintain sufficient funds to cover operating cash flows, periods of reduced water sales, or unforeseen costs. o Minimum: 20% of Operating & Maintenance expenditures Page 3 2 0 9 4 o Target: 25% of Operating & Maintenance expenditures Capital Replacement Reserves – to cover a portion of upcoming annual capital expenditures and mitigate unexpected capital needs. o Minimum: 25% of average 5 - year CIP o Target: 25% of average 5 - year CIP Proposed Water Debt: To maintain effective operations, it is necessary to secure Water utility revenue through low-interest State Revolving Loans and market-debt loans. This approach ensures ongoing expenditures can be sustained until the anticipated rate-generated revenues come into effect. Staff will continue to pursue external funding sources to reduce debt issuances, if possible. FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Market Debt Issuance $25M State Loan (SRF)$2.5M $1M $3M $3M Wholesale Water Purchase Cost Pass-Through: The City purchases water from wholesale agencies and has no control over those charges. The City has estimated future wholesale rates; however, if wholesale rates are higher than predicted, the City may pass-through the increase in wholesale water purchase costs as allowable by Government Code Section 53756. The pass-through amount will not exceed the increase in cost. The pass-through will be calculated as the increase in wholesale water purchase costs divided by annual water use. Water Bill Components: Water rates have two (2) components – 1) fixed charges; and 2) variable volumetric charges. Fixed charges are a function of meter size and are charges without respect to use. Volumetric charges are calculated based on the amount of water used multiplied by the rate per unit. The unit is measured in hundred cubic feet (HCF), which is approximately 748 gallons. Proposed Water Rates: Current water rate structures will remain the same. That is, a fixed charge by meter size, plus a volumetric rate that is generally broken down into the following: • A two-tiered Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential, and Leisure World customer class based on consumption; and, Page 4 2 0 9 4 • A single-tiered rate structure for Commercial, Irrigation, Sunset Aquatic Park, and City customer class based on consumption. Although the overall rate structure will not change, the amount of the fixed charge, which is based on meter size, is proposed to increase for the Leisure World community based upon a recent evaluation of its meter infrastructure. The City’s engineering consultant, AKM Consulting Engineers (AKM), conducted an independent evaluation of the meter size for the Leisure World community. In an opinion dated April 1, 2025, AKM concluded that the two (2), existing 12-inch service meters serving Leisure World are appropriately sized to account for the community’s “peak hour and maximum day demand plus fire flow.” Beginning with the City’s last rate update in 2021, Leisure World’s fixed rate charge was based on one (1), six-inch meter in accordance with an earlier analysis of Leisure World’s effective flow demand. However, AKM has provided a current and different analysis of the cost of providing service to the Leisure World community. The tables below illustrate the proposed rate and charge increases for the next five (5) years, subject to pass throughs for increases in the cost to purchase wholesale water. These adjustments were calculated by forecasting revenue, expenses and reserves to establish adequate cost-to-debt ratio. Page 5 2 0 9 4 Proposed Water Fixed Charges ($/bi-monthly) Page 6 2 0 9 4 Proposed Water Volumetric Charges ($/hcf) * Multi-Family tier allocations are determined by multiplying the hcf definition shown above (17 hcf) by the number of dwelling units for a given account. For example, the tier allocation for a Multi-Family Residential (MFR) account with two dwelling units would be equal to 17 hcf X 2 dwelling units = 34 hcf bi-monthly. ** Leisure World tier allocations are determined in the same manner as MFR, by multiplying dwelling units by the individual allocation of 17 hcf. Sewer Utility System: The City also owns and maintains a Wastewater (also known as Sewer) collections system. This system consists of 181,000 linear feet of pipeline, approximately 800 manholes, and six (6) pump stations. Similar to the Water Utility System, the Sewer Utility System is supported by technical and administrative staff through a rate-supported Sewer Enterprise fund. Sewer Enterprise Fund Reserve Policy: The sewer rates have been constructed with a financial plan that corrects the structural deficit and sufficiently funds operations, capital and reserves. A reserve policy was set based on the types of risk the utility faces. Operating Reserves – to cover day-to-day expenses and maintain sufficient funds to cover operating cash flows, periods of reduced revenue, or unforeseen costs. o Minimum: 25% of Operating & Maintenance expenditures o Target: 25% of Operating & Maintenance expenditures Capital Replacement Reserves – to cover a portion of upcoming annual capital expenditures and mitigate unexpected capital needs. o Minimum: 25% of average 5 - year CIP Page 7 2 0 9 4 o Target: 25% of average 5 - year CIP Proposed Sewer Debt: The required Sewer Utility revenue to properly sustain operations will require market-debt issuance. This will allow expenditures to continue while the proposed rate-generated revenues catch up. Staff will continue to pursue more favorable external funding sources to reduce debt issuance, if possible. FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Market Debt Issuance $6M $4M $4M Sewer Bill Components: Sewer Rates have two (2) components – 1) fixed charges; and 2) variable volumetric charges. Fixed charges are a function of customer classification and are charges without respect to use. The City does not measure wastewater flow, but instead estimates flows based on water use by applying a return-to-sewer factor (RTS) to non-residential water use. Volumetric charges, therefore, are calculated based on the amount of water used multiplied by the rate per unit. Proposed Sewer Rates: The current sewer rate structures will remain the same. • Single Family Residential: fixed charge; • Other Customer Classes: fixed charge plus volumetric rate based on water consumption. The table below illustrates the proposed rate and charge increases for the next five (5) years. These adjustments were calculated by forecasting revenue, expenses and reserves to establish adequate cost-to-debt ratio.   Page 8 2 0 9 4 Proposed Sewer Fixed Charges ($/bi-monthly & Volumetric Charges ($/hcf of water) Proposition 218 Requirements: Water and sewer rate adjustments are subject to Proposition 218’s (California Constitution Article XIIII D) public hearing and majority protest procedures. On May 12, 2025, City Council set a public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments for July 14, 2025, and directed staff to initiate the Proposition 218 majority protest process for the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments in compliance with Proposition 218. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Clerk will complete the tabulation of all written protests received from record property owners receiving water or Page 9 2 0 9 4 sewer service, water customers and sewer customers, including those received during the public hearing. Only one (1) protest will be counted per parcel in determining the existence of a majority protest. The City Clerk will then report on the results to the City Council. If, according to the final tabulation, the written protests submitted against the water rate adjustments represent more than 50% of all the parcels in the City receiving water service, a majority protest exists, and the City Council shall not impose the water rate increase. If the final tabulation of written protests represents less than 50% of all the parcels in the City receiving water service, the City Council could consider implementing the water rate increases effective August 1, 2025, and on July 1 for each year from 2026 through 2029. If, according to the final tabulation, the written protests submitted against the sewer rate adjustments represent more than 50% of all the parcels in the City receiving sewer service, a majority protest exists, and the City Council shall not impose the sewer rate increase. If the final tabulation of written protests represents less than 50% of all the parcels in the City receiving sewer service, the City Council could consider implementing the sewer rate increases effective August 1, 2025, and on July 1 for each year from 2026 through 2029. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Procedure: The State of California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2257 (Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Procedure) (AB 2577), effective January 1, 2025, which assists local agencies in avoiding litigation by having an opportunity to address or resolve any written objections before making a final decision to impose or adjust water and sewer rates. AB 2257 added Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 to the Government Code and establishes a formal written objection procedure requiring persons and entities to timely raise, in writing, specific Proposition 218 concerns about proposed water and sewer rate adjustments or be barred from filing litigation alleging noncompliance with Proposition 218. On May 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution 7645 establishing an Exhaustion of Administration Remedies Procedure pursuant to AB 2577. The Notice of Public Hearing includes the substantive and procedural requirements for submitting a written objection to the proposed water and sewer rates in accordance with the requirements of AB 2257. As set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing, the City set July 7, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., as the deadline for the submittal of written objections, which date is at least 45 days after the notice was mailed as required by AB 2257. The City Clerk received three (3) timely submitted written objections pursuant to AB 2577. Copies of the three (3) written objections are set forth in Exhibit A of proposed Resolution 7668. Pursuant to AB 2257, the City Council must respond in writing to timely submitted written objections. The City’s written responses to each timely objection are set forth in Exhibit B of the same Resolution. In accordance with AB 2257, the responses include the grounds for which a Page 10 2 0 9 4 challenge is not resulting in amendments to the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments and explain the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments in response to each objection. In considering the responses, the City Council must determine the following: (1) whether the objections and the responses warrant clarifications to the proposed water and/or sewer rates; (2) whether to reduce the proposed water and/or sewer rates; (3) whether to further review before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction is needed; and (4) whether to proceed with the Public Hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: This item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of water and sewer rates under Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8). The proposed rates are proposed to meet operating expenses, purchase necessary supplies and equipment, meet financial reserve needs, and fund capital projects necessary to maintain service within the existing service area. Furthermore, it is not a “project” as defined under Section 15378(b) of the state CEQA Guidelines. This item is also exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that the approval of Water and Sewer Utility Rates will not have a significant effect on the environment. LEGAL ANALYSIS: The City Attorney has approved the resolutions as to form. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The anticipated increase in water and sewer revenue required to sustain proper utility operations, is summarized below: Projected Water Utility Revenue Adjustment FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Projected Revenue Adjustment $2.67M $2.23M $595k $625k $660k Projected Sewer Utility Revenue Adjustment FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Projected Revenue Adjustment $800k $665k $535k $565k $195k STRATEGIC PLAN: This item is not applicable to the Strategic Plan. Page 11 2 0 9 4 RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the City Council conduct a public hearing to accept comments on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, 2. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, that the City Council adopt Resolution 7668 responding to timely filed written objections to the proposed water and sewer rates pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 2257; and, 3. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed water rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7669 establishing the water rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 4. Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed sewer rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7670 establishing the sewer rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 5. Receive and file the Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study, prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., dated June 17, 2025, as presented to the City Council at this meeting and on file in the office of the City Clerk. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: Iris Lee Patrick Gallegos Iris Lee, Director of Public Works Patrick Gallegos, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution 7668 – Responding to Written Objections B. Resolution 7669 – Approving Water Rates C. Resolution 7670 – Approving Sewer Rates RESOLUTION 7668 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL RESPONDING TO TIMELY FILED WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RATES FOR THE CITY’S WATER AND SEWER SERVICE CHARGES PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 2257 WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach maintains a municipal Water Utility that provides water services and a municipal Sewer Utility that provides wastewater (sewer) collection services to residents and businesses; and, WHEREAS, the City’s Water Utility and Sewer Utility operational and capital improvement costs have increased substantially since the last rate adjustment, and are estimated to continue increasing significantly; and, WHEREAS, the City’s currently established water and sewer rates are not adequate to meet increasing operations and maintenance and capital improvements costs without compromise to system operations; and, WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, the City retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to conduct a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study (2025 Financial Plan) to analyze the cost of providing water and sewer services and recommend appropriate water and sewer rate adjustments; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, an overview of the draft 2025 Financial Plan, including recommendations for proposed water and sewer rate adjustments were presented to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, in order to adjust the water and sewer rates, the City must comply with Article XIIID of the Constitution, more commonly known as Proposition 218; and, WHEREAS, on September 25, 2024, Governor Newsom approved State Assembly Bill 2257 (AB 2577), effective January 1, 2005, which added Sections 53759.1 and 53759.2 to the California Government Code; and, WHEREAS, AB 2257 creates an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement that, if implemented by a local public agency, requires persons and entities to submit a written objection that specifies the grounds for alleging noncompliance of proposed water and sewer rates with Proposition 218 prior to the deadline established by the local public agency, or be barred from any right to challenge the water and sewer rates through a legal proceeding; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution 7645 to provide for an exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement pursuant to AB 2257 in connection with the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments and set July 7, 2025 at 5:00 p.m., as the deadline for the submittal of written objections; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution 7644 setting a public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments on July 14, 2025 (the “Public Hearing”), and directing staff to initiate the Proposition 218 majority protest process for the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of AB 2257 and Proposition 218, the City provided mailed notice of the Public Hearing, which notice includes, among other information, the substantive and procedural requirements for submitting a written objection to the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments and a statement that the failure to timely object in writing to the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments bars any right to challenge the proposed rate adjustments through a legal proceeding; and, WHEREAS, the City complied with the provisions set forth in AB 2257 for establishing an exhaustion of remedies requirement in connection with the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments, including, among other things, providing not less than 45 days from the date of the mailing the notice of the Public Hearing for persons and entities to submit a written objection to the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, WHEREAS, as of the July 7, 2025, 5:00 p.m. deadline for submitting written objections, the City received three (3) written objections to the proposed water rate adjustments and/or the proposed sewer rate adjustments, which objections are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Objections); and, WHEREAS, this Resolution, as required by AB 2577, responds in writing to the Objections, and the responses to the Objections are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Responses); and, WHEREAS, each Response includes the grounds for which a challenge is not resulting in amendments to the proposed water rate adjustments and/or proposed sewer rate adjustments, as applicable, and an explanation of the substantive basis for retaining or altering the proposed water rate adjustments and/or proposed sewer rate adjustments, as applicable in response to the Objection. NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds the Recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct and are incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Responses set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Section 3. In considering the Responses, the City Council determined (1) whether the Objections and the Responses warrant clarifications to the proposed water rate adjustments and/or proposed sewer rate adjustments; (2) whether to reduce the proposed water rates and/or proposed sewer rates; (3) whether to undertake further review before making a determination on whether clarification or reduction is needed; and (4) whether to proceed with the Public. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or their application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. Section 4. If any provision of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or their application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7668 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk Exhibit A – Written Objections (redacted) Exhibit B – Responses to Written Objections EXHIBIT A Written Objections (redacted) City of Seal Beach June 19, 2025 Office of the City Clerk 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Please register my NO vote to this outrageously high water and wastewater rate hike. Water rate structures that exclude a flat "door fee" service charge often appear to promote conservation or fairness by charging only by meter size and usage. However, in practice, they can be deeply inequitable for several reasons. Moreover, in areas that are not metered, like the 6,608 homes in Leisure World, the inequity is ever worse. This study is such an example of inequity and does not meet Prop 218 standards requiring equitable billing. 1. Essential Infrastructure Costs Are Shared by All: Every customer, regardless of how much water they use, benefits from access to a maintained, functioning water system—pipes, treatment plants, emergency readiness, meter reading, billing systems, and more. These fixed costs do not vary with usage and must be covered to ensure a reliable water supply. Without a flat door fee, these infrastructure costs are unfairly shifted onto single family homes and higher usage customers, even though low-usage customers benefit equally from the availability of service. 2. Low Users Don’t Pay Their Fair Share: While it may seem equitable to charge multi-family based only on meter size and consumption, very low users—including vacant properties, second homes, or seasonal short-term rentals—still rely on the water system being ready to serve them at any time. Without a door fee, these properties contribute little or nothing toward the fixed costs of maintaining that readiness. 3. Cost Burden Shifts to Families and Low-Income Households: Meter size flat rates with volume usage systems often shift the cost burden onto single ¾” – 1” meters and larger households, which may include low-income or multigenerational families. These households may have higher water use due to basic needs (cooking, hygiene, laundry) but not necessarily the ability to pay more. A flat door fee ensures all users contribute a fair minimum amount, rather than penalizing single family dwellings and those who may use slightly more water due to family size or circumstance. 4. Discourages System Equity and Resilience Investments: Utilities trying to fund projects for equity—like replacing lead pipes, expanding access, or supporting affordability programs—need stable revenue. Without base door fees, funding such initiatives becomes harder, exacerbating disparities for families and vulnerable populations. Having reviewed the new wastewater rate hikes, it is obvious that once again, the single-family dwelling is subsidizing others. If single family homes can be charged a flat fee on sewer, so should every dwelling unit using our sewer system. Multi-family homes once again are being subsidized by single family residences. Also, Sunset Aquatic Park is the sole user of their sewer system and yet to upgrade their system, all of Seal Beach is being charged. Again, this is not equitable. I oppose the deeply flawed and inequitable rate increase on the grounds that it has single family dwellings supporting multi-family units and Sunset Aquatic Park. Prop 218 requires that no segment of our population subsidize another. This study falls short of that goal on both Water and Wastewater. While I agree our infrastructure needs work, until the billing is equitable, I oppose. Sincerely, Ellery Deaton Water/Wastewater Bill Payer 1 Iris Lee From:Brandon DeCriscio Sent:Monday, July 7, 2025 11:53 AM To:Iris Lee; Patrick Gallegos Subject:FW: Written Protest - Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies FYI… Apologies if this is a duplicate and Gloria has already sent it. Thank you, Brandon DeCriscio Deputy City Clerk (562) 431-2527 x 1306 From: Theresa Miller Sent: Monday, July 7, 2025 11:32 AM To: Brandon DeCriscio <BDeCriscio@sealbeachca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Written Protest - Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Please confirm receipt of this email. Thnak you. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Theresa Miller Date: Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 11:27 AM Subject: Written Protest - Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies To: Gloria Harper <gharper@sealbeachca.gov> Cc: Joe Kalmick <jkalmick@sealbeachca.gov>, Lisa Landau <LLandau@sealbeachca.gov>, <psenecal@sealbeachca.gov>, <bwong@sealbeachca.gov>, Nathan Steele <nsteele@sealbeachca.gov> Theresa Miller July 7, 2025 2 City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Written Protest and Objection to Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increases Under Proposition 218 – Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Dear City Clerk and Members of the City Council: I am the record property owner of , located within the City of Seal Beach. I hereby submit this written protest and formal objection to the proposed water and sewer rate increases scheduled for a public hearing on July 14, 2025, pursuant to the Proposition 218 notice issued by the City. This written protest constitutes an objection to the proposed rates under Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution. Furthermore, this submission serves as a formal notice of exhaustion of administrative remedies. I intend this protest to fully preserve my right to challenge the proposed rate increases in any future legal or administrative forum. My specific objections include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The proposed water and sewer rates appear to exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to my property, in violation of Proposition 218. 2. The City has failed to clearly demonstrate that the revenues derived from the increased water and sewer rates will not be used for purposes other than those for which the fees are charged. 3. The notice provided to ratepayers lacks sufficient detail to determine whether the methodology used in the rate study is consistent with constitutional requirements. 4. The public process surrounding these changes lacks transparency and may not meet the standards required by the California Constitution and Government Code. I respectfully request that the City Council reject the proposed water and sewer rate increases and direct staff to revise the rate structure in compliance with applicable law. Please confirm receipt of this objection and ensure it is included in the record of the public hearing. Sincerely, Theresa Miller EXHIBIT B Responses to Written Objections Response to Ellery Deaton Written Objection, dated June 19, 2025 Comment #1 1. Essential Infrastructure Costs Are Shared by All: Every customer, regardless of how much water they use, benefits from access to a maintained, funcƟoning water system—pipes, treatment plants, emergency readiness, meter reading, billing systems, and more. These fixed costs do not vary with usage and must be covered to ensure a reliable water supply. Without a flat door fee, these infrastructure costs are unfairly shiŌed onto single family homes and higher usage customers, even though low-usage customers benefit equally from the availability of service. Response #1 The City agrees that every customer benefits from the City’s water system regardless of how much water they use and that fixed costs must be covered to ensure a reliable water supply. The City does not agree that, without a “flat door fee”, infrastructure costs are unfairly shifted from low-usage customers to higher usage customers. For purposes of this response, the City has assumed that a “flat door fee” refers to a fixed water charge that is the same for each dwelling unit (e.g., home, apartment, condo) regardless of how much water used. The City’s water and sewer charges are property-related fees, meaning that they are governed by Proposition 218, which was approved by California voters in 1996 and added Article XIII D to the California Constitution. Article XIII D imposes substantive requirements for property-related fees, including a requirement that the amount of the fee imposed on any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to that parcel. This means that the City’s cost of providing water and sewer service must be allocated among the parcels in the City in a reasonable manner that does not result in one or more customers unfairly subsidizing another customer or customers. Proposition 218 requires rate structuring on the basis of parcels, rather than units. To assist the City in ensuring that the water and sewer charges, as proposed to be modified and increased, meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218, the City hired Raftelis, a rate consultant. Raftelis prepared a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study, dated June 17, 2025 (the “2025 Financial Plan”). Except as noted therein and below, the 2025 Financial Plan uses the cost-of-service analysis and rate structure design that Raftelis completed in 2020 (the “2020 Study”). In 2021, the City’s water and sewer rates were set on the basis of the 2020 Study in compliance with the Proposition 218 proportionality requirement. The rate design set forth in the 2020 Study is consistent with the rate setting principles established by the American Water Works Association in the Manual M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, Seventh Edition (“Manual”). The 2025 Financial Plan relies on the rate design in the 2020 Study, with the exception that the amount of the fixed charge for the Leisure World community is proposed to increase based upon a recent evaluation of its meter infrastructure. The City’s engineering consultant, AKM Consulting Engineers (“AKM”), conducted an independent evaluation of the meter size for the Leisure World community. In an opinion dated April 1, 2025, AKM concluded that the two existing 12-inch service meters serving Leisure World are appropriately sized to account for the community’s “peak hour and maximum day demand plus fire flow.” Beginning with the City’s last rate adjustment in 2021, Leisure World’s fixed rate charge was based on one 6-inch meter in accordance with an earlier analysis of Leisure World’s eƯective flow demand. However, AKM has provided a current and di Ưerent analysis of the cost of providing service to the Leisure World community. Raftelis’ water cost-of-service analysis allocates costs to each parcel based on: 1) Water use; 2) Number of meters (if a customer has more than one); and, 3) Meter size. The fixed charge recovers a portion of infrastructure costs and recovers those costs in proportion to meter size, which is an industry standard. The fixed charges do not shift costs from low use customers onto single family homes and higher use customers because the rate structure ensures that the charges take into account the diƯerent demands that each residential customer places on the City’s water system in proportion to meter size. The fixed charge is based on the premise that the meter size is proportional to potential infrastructure use. A meter of a certain size has the potential to demand a certain volume of water, and the water system infrastructure is sized accordingly. Larger meters can demand more water and therefore customers pay in proportion to the potential flow through the meter. A flat door fee would mean that an unmetered dwelling unit (i.e., a door) would be subject to the costs that are recovered in the fixed charge as though it had a meter. The fixed charge (often called a Ready to Serve Charge) recovers three types of costs shown below. Set forth below is an explanation of why the rate structure does not recover these costs on a “per door” basis. 1. Customer billing costs - Customer billing costs involve answering customer calls, sending paper bills and reading customer meters and since only metered customers get a bill (the apartment owner/manager gets a bill for the meters serving the complex) these costs are not charged on a per door basis. 2. Meter maintenance costs - Since dwelling units in an apartment do not have a meter, meter maintenance costs are not charged on a per door basis. 3. Fixed capacity (infrastructure) costs – Since an entire apartment complex’s potential demand is reflected in the meter size serving it and the meter’s associated hydraulic capacity, these costs are allocated in proportion to the meter (or meters) serving a complex and not charged on a per door basis. The single-family class and all customer classes are paying their proportional share of the costs of each of these three items. It is an industry standard and in alignment with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218 for property-related fees to recover infrastructure costs through both the fixed charge (in proportion to meter size) and the volumetric rate. Recovering a portion of infrastructure costs in proportion to actual volumetric use ensures that high volume users pay in proportion to actual use as opposed to potential use. Rate setting is a complex process, and it is possible that a variety of rate structures could meet Proposition 218’s requirement that the amount of the water or sewer charge imposed on any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. To transition to a flat per door rate would require a new rate study and cost-of- service analysis to support such rate structure. However, for the reasons discussed above, it is unlikely that a new study and analysis could support a flat per door rate structure as meeting Proposition 218’s proportionality requirement. Comment #2 2. Low Users Don’t Pay Their Fair Share: While it may seem equitable to charge multi-family based only on meter size and consumption, very low users—including vacant properƟes, second homes, or seasonal short-term rentals—sƟll rely on the water system being ready to serve them at any Ɵme. Without a door fee, these properƟes contribute liƩle or nothing toward the fixed costs of maintaining that readiness. Response #2 The “very low users” mentioned above – vacant properties, second homes or seasonal short-term rentals – pay the fixed charge (Ready to Serve Charge) even if they did not use water. This is how they contribute towards the fixed costs of the system and pay their fair share. Very low users are paying their proportional cost of service covered by the fixed charge, as described in Responses #1. Comment #3 3. Cost Burden Shifts to Families and Low-Income Households: Meter size flat rates with volume usage systems oŌen shiŌ the cost burden onto single ¾” – 1” meters and larger households, which may include low-income or mulƟgeneraƟonal families. These households may have higher water use due to basic needs (cooking, hygiene, laundry) but not necessarily the ability to pay more. A flat door fee ensures all users contribute a fair minimum amount, rather than penalizing single family dwellings and those who may use slightly more water due to family size or circumstance. Response #3 See Response #1. Comment #4 4. Discourages System Equity and Resilience Investments: Utilities trying to fund projects for equity—like replacing lead pipes, expanding access, or supporƟng affordability programs—need stable revenue. Without base door fees, funding such initiatives becomes harder, exacerbaƟng dispariƟes for families and vulnerable populations. Response #4 Stable revenue is a function of the proportion of revenue collected from the fixed charge (Ready to Serve Charge) out of total revenue (fixed plus volumetric). This would only change if the City purposefully increased the proportion of revenue derived from the fixed charge. In other words, adding a “per door” charge, without increasing the proportion of fixed revenue would not impact revenue stability. It would only redistribute the proportion of fixed revenue that each class or customer pays. Stable revenue can be achieved regardless of “door” charges. Comment #5 Having reviewed the new wastewater rate hikes, it is obvious that once again, the single-family dwelling is subsidizing others. If single family homes can be charged a flat fee on sewer, so should every dwelling unit using our sewer system. MulƟ-family homes once again are being subsidized by single family residences. Response #5 Single-family homes are paying their fair share, in accordance with the rate structure which allocates costs in proportion to parameters described in Response #1 and in alignment with Proposition 218. The 2020 Study allocated costs between single-family and multi-family customers based on a Return to Sewer (RTS) factor, ensuring that each customer class pays in proportion to its usage. Therefore, single-family homes are not subsidizing multi-family properties. Because sewer discharge from single-family homes tends to be more consistent and predictable compared to other customer classes, it was determined that a flat rate was appropriate and equitable approach for single-family homes. Comment #6 Also, Sunset Aquatic Park is the sole user of their sewer system and yet to upgrade their system, all of Seal Beach is being charged. Again, this is not equitable Response #6 Water - The fixed charge for the Sunset Aquatic Park meter size is higher than the fixed charge for other customers with the same meter size. This is to recover the added capital cost associated with the water line feeding Sunset Aquatic Park. Sewer – Sunset Aquatic Park has a separate sewer service equity charge and sewer capital equity charge to recover added cost associated with the sewer service. Based on the foregoing responses, the City Council determines that the objections described herein do not warrant (1) clarifications to the proposed water rates or sewer rates; (2) a reduction to the proposed water rates or sewer rates, (3) further review, or (4) delaying the public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments. Response to Eugenya Yasnogorodsky Written Objection, received June 10, 2025 Comment #1 Response #1 Comment noted. Comment #2 Response #2 Your concern regarding the personnel cost inflator is noted. The 8% annual personnel cost projection is a comprehensive estimate that includes merit increases, cost of living adjustments (COLAs), retirement costs, insurance, and other legally obligated personnel- related expenses. This projection is based on recent cost trends and anticipated future obligations and is necessary to maintain service levels and staƯing required for utility operations. Additionally, the claim that this personnel inflator is applied to capital improvement projects is incorrect. Capital costs are modeled separately with their own inflators—5% for FY 2025-26, 4% for FY 2026-27, and 3% annually thereafter. Based on the foregoing responses, the City Council determines that the objections described herein do not warrant (1) clarifications to the proposed water rates or sewer rates; (2) a reduction to the proposed water rates or sewer rates, (3) further review, or (4) delaying the public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments. Response to Theresa Miller Written Objection, received July 7, 2025 Comment #1 The proposed water and sewer rates appear to exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to my property, in violation of Proposition 218. Response #1 The comment asserts that the proposed water and sewer rates appear to exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to the commenter’s property, but does not include any specific information regarding alleged noncompliance with Proposition 218. However, the City notes that the City’s water and sewer charges are property- related fees, meaning that they are governed by Proposition 218, which was approved by California voters in 1996 and added Article XIII D to the California Constitution. Article XIII D imposes substantive requirements for property-related fees, including a requirement that the amount of the fee imposed on any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to that parcel. This means that the City’s cost of providing water and sewer service must be allocated among the parcels in the City in a reasonable manner that does not result in one or more customers unfairly subsidizing another customer or customers. Proposition 218 requires rate structuring on the basis of parcels, rather than units. To assist the City in ensuring that the water and sewer charges, as proposed to be modified and increased, meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218, including that the amount of the fee imposed on any property does not exceed the proportional cost of the water and sewer services attributable to the parcel, the City hired Raftelis, a rate consultant. Raftelis prepared a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study, dated June 17, 2025 (the “2025 Financial Plan”). The 2025 Financial Plan uses the cost-of-service analysis and rate structure design that Raftelis completed in 2020 (the “2020 Study”). In 2021, the City’s water and sewer rates were set on the basis of the 2020 Study in compliance with the Proposition 218 proportionality requirement. The rate design set forth in the 2020 Study is consistent with the rate setting principles established by the American Water Works Association in the Manual M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, Seventh Edition (“Manual”). Raftelis’ cost-of-service analysis allocates costs to each customer class based on: 1) Water use/water discharged to the sewer; 2) Number of meters (if a customer has more than one); and, 3) Meter size. Comment #2 The City has failed to clearly demonstrate that the revenues derived from the increased water and sewer rates will not be used for purposes other than those for which the fees are charged. Response #2 The comment does not include any specific information alleging that the revenues derived from the proposed water and sewer rates will be used for purposes other than those for which the fees are charged. The City strictly complies with all applicable laws that govern the use of water and sewer utility revenues. Revenues collected from water and sewer rates are legally restricted and are accounted for in separate enterprise funds, entirely distinct from the City’s General Fund. These funds have their own accounting code structure to ensure transparency and proper tracking of all revenues and expenditures. By law, and as a matter of City policy, these revenues can only be used for the costs of providing water and sewer services, including operations, maintenance, capital improvements, and system reinvestment. The City of Seal Beach undergoes an independent annual financial audit to ensure compliance with generally accepted auditing standards and government regulations. This process evaluates the City's financial practices, internal controls, and overall fiscal health while promoting accountability and transparency in financial reporting. Comment #3 The notice provided to ratepayers lacks suƯicient detail to determine whether the methodology used in the rate study is consistent with constitutional requirements. Response #3 The Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Adjustments (“Notice”) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, and contains all the necessary information required by law. Optional supplemental information was also included to better explain the rate adjustment process and described the City’s water and sewer infrastructure. As noted in the Notice, the reasons for the proposed rate adjustments, the basis upon which they were calculated, and the amount of the proposed rates are described in more detail in the 2025 Financial Plan and the 2020 Study posted on the City’s webpage at utilityratestudy.sealbeachca.gov and available for review at the City Clerk’s OƯice. Comment #4 The public process surrounding these changes lacks transparency and may not meet the standards required by the California Constitution and Government Code. Response #4 The comment does not include any specific information regarding an alleged lack of transparency or how the public process does not meet the requirements of Proposition 218 and only states that the “public process may not meet the standards required by the California Constitution and Government Code”. However, the City notes that the public process for considering the proposed water and sewer rates fully complies with Proposition 218. As described in the Notice of Public Hearing, which was mailed to record owners and customers of record at least 45 days prior to the deadline for submitting written objections, the City will respond to all timely submitted written objections, consider all timely submitted written protests and all testimony at the public hearing, and determine whether there is a majority protest prior to considering approval of the proposed rates. Based on the foregoing responses, the City Council determines that the objections described herein do not warrant (1) clarifications to the proposed water rates or sewer rates; (2) a reduction to the proposed water rates or sewer rates, (3) further review, or (4) delaying the public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments. RESOLUTION 7669 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE CITY’S WATER SERVICE CHARGES EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 1, 2025, JULY 1, 2026, JULY 1, 2027, JULY 1, 2028, AND JULY 1, 2029 WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach maintains a municipal Water Utility that provides water services to residents and businesses; and, WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution 7114 to adjust water rates; and, WHEREAS, the City’s Water Utility operational and capital improvement costs have increased substantially since the last rate adjustment, and are estimated to continue increasing significantly; and, WHEREAS, the City’s currently established water rates are not adequate to meet increasing operations and maintenance and capital improvements costs without compromise to system operations; and, WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, the City retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to conduct a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study to analyze the cost of providing water and sewer services, and recommend appropriate water and sewer rate adjustments (2025 Financial Plan); and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, an overview of the draft 2025 Financial Plan, including recommendations for proposed water rate adjustments was presented to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, in order to adjust the water rates, the City must comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution, more commonly known as Proposition 218; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution 7644 setting a public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments on July 14, 2025 (Public Hearing), and directing staff to initiate the Proposition 218 majority protest process for the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, WHEREAS, the City provided mailed notice of the Public Hearing in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 and held the Public Hearing on July 14, 2025; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, the City Council considered the 2025 Financial Plan and heard and considered all oral testimony and written protests and materials submitted regarding the proposed water rate adjustments; and, 1 0 2 8 2 WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, in conformity with Proposition 218, the City Council determined that no majority protest against the proposed water rates exist (i.e., written protests against the proposed water rates submitted and not withdrawn do not represent a majority of the parcels (50% +1) that receive water service). NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds the Recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution 7114 and adopts the following water rates, subject to potential pass-through of increases in wholesale water purchase costs: Proposed Water Fixed Charges ($/bi-monthly) 1 0 2 8 2 Proposed Water Volumetric Charges ($/hcf) * Multi-Family and Leisure World tier allocations are determined by multiplying the hcf by the number of dwelling units for a given account. Section 3. The City purchases water from the Orange County Water District and Municipal Water District of Orange County and has no control over the charges from these wholesale agencies. As part of the 2025 Financial Plan, the City estimated future wholesale costs. However, if wholesale costs are higher than predicted, the City may pass through to customers the increase in wholesale water purchase costs. The pass-through will be calculated based on the increase in wholesale water purchase costs compared to projected wholesale costs included in the 2025 Financial Plan, divided by customer annual volumetric water use. Notice of any adjustment to pass- through costs will be provided 30 days or more before the effective date of the adjustment. Section 4. If any provision of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or their application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025 by the following vote: 1 0 2 8 2 AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7669 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk RESOLUTION 7670 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING RATES FOR THE CITY’S WASTEWATER (SEWER) SERVICE CHARGES EFFECTIVE ON AUGUST 1, 2025, JULY 1, 2026, JULY 1, 2027, JULY 1, 2028, AND JULY 1, 2029 WHEREAS, the City of Seal Beach maintains a municipal Sewer Utility that provides sewer services to residents and businesses; and, WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 7115 to adjust the rates for the City’s wastewater (sewer) service charges; and, WHEREAS, the City’s Sewer Utility operational and capital improvement costs have increased substantially since the last rate adjustment, and are estimated to continue increasing significantly; and, WHEREAS, the City’s currently established sewer rates are not adequate to meet increasing operations and maintenance and capital improvements costs without compromise to system operations; and, WHEREAS, on June 12, 2023, the City retained Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. to conduct a Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study to analyze the cost of providing water and sewer services, and recommend appropriate water and sewer rate adjustments (2025 Financial Plan); and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, an overview of the draft 2025 Financial Plan, including recommendations for proposed sewer rate adjustments was presented to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, in order to adjust the sewer rates, the City must comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution, more commonly known as Proposition 218; and, WHEREAS, on May 12, 2025, City Council adopted Resolution 7644 setting a public hearing on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments on July 14, 2025 (the “Public Hearing”), and directing staff to initiate the Proposition 218 majority protest process for the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, WHEREAS, the City provided mailed notice of the Public Hearing in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 and held the Public Hearing on July 14, 2025; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, the City Council considered the 2025 Financial Plan and heard and considered all oral testimony and written protests and materials submitted regarding the proposed sewer rate adjustments; and, 1 0 2 8 3 WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the Public Hearing, in conformity with Proposition 218, the City Council determined that no majority protest against the proposed water rates exist (i.e., written protests against the proposed sewer rates submitted and not withdrawn do not represent a majority of the parcels (50% +1) that receive sewer service). NOW, THEREFORE, the Seal Beach City Council does resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds the Recitals set forth in this Resolution are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. The City Council hereby repeals Resolution 7115 and adopts the following sewer rates: Proposed Sewer Fixed Charges ($/bi-monthly & Volumetric Charges ($/hcf of water) 1 0 2 8 3 Section 3. If any provision of this Resolution or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or their application and, to this end, the provisions of this Resolution are severable. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members Lisa Landau, Mayor ATTEST: Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution 7670 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of July 2025. Gloria D. Harper, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Proposed Water and Wastewater Rate Adjustment Public Hearing - July 14, 2025 Revised Financial Plan- City Council Workshop #1 2/26/25 Informational Open House #2 6/14/2025 Financial Analysis Commenced June 2023 Public Hearing Rates Proposed No Action Taken 2/12/2024 Timeline – Where We’ve Been 2023 Financial Plan Presented December 2023 City Implemented Final Rate Increase from Prior Rate Adoption 1/1/2025 City Council Workshop #2 3/26/25 TODAY Public Hearing 7/14/25 2024 2025 Informational Open House #1 6/4/2025 City Council Meeting 5/12/25 2 Community Information Sessions 3 Fire Station No. 48 3131 N. Gate Road, Seal Beach 1.Wednesday, June 4, 2025 2.Saturday, June 14,2025 What do my rates pay for? Utility rates fund operations, maintenance, repairs, debt payments, emergency reserves, and forward-looking capital improvement projects. Water •Imported water and groundwater replenishment •73 miles of pipelines, downtown has 120-year-old pipe •4 groundwater wells •2 reservoirs Sewer •34 miles of sewer mains •25% severe condition •Over 100-year-old pipes •6 pump stations •800 manholes 4 Water and Sewer Utilities Are Not Covering Expenses Inflation: Post Covid-19 reached highest rate since 1981 and has impacted operational and capital project costs Rain: FY 2023 and 2024 were wet years; net result is decreased revenue; $600k lower revenue than anticipated each year Wholesale Water Costs: Increased OCWD water wholesale costs (partly due to PFAS), MWDOC – Import water wholesaler Both OCWD and MWDOC have had or are proposing 2 years of double-digit rate increases and historically increases have been in the mid single digits Aging Infrastructure / Deferred Maintenance Sewer: Not meeting required debt coverage ratio, charges were reduced by 25% in the last study 5 Why Rate Increases are Needed: 6 Water Phase Lampson Well Treatment System About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Financials Constraints Treatment system to remove nuisance odor, allowing increased pumping capacity. May need to import water at double the cost of groundwater if not producing at capacity. •Construction: FY 2025-2027 •Design is complete. Soliciting for construction bids. •$4.5 M •OCWD Producers Loan •Lampson Well must be fully operational before the rehabilitation of the Bolsa Chica Well, which currently supplies the majority of the City's groundwater Lampson Well, the City’s newest built in 2011, produces a nuisance odor caused by naturally occurring H2S. 7 LCWA Water Main Lining About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Project will reline the transmission line to provide water to southerly part of City to provide the necessary fire flow. Transmission line crossing Los Cerritos Wetlands/Hellman Ranch that has experienced several recent breaks. Phase Financials Constraints •Construction: FY 2025-2026 •Design is complete •Coastal Development Permit complete •Coordinating construction with LCWA •$2.5M Construction Value •Anticipated SRF funding, pending rate approval •Environmentally sensitive habitat •Must be constructed with wetlands restoration – Fall 2025 8 Water Financial Outlook Without Revenue Increases (or bond issuances) In the red before paying for capital expenses 9 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Projected Total Revenue $6,488,889 $6,909,669 $7,049,657 $7,049,899 Personnel $2,017,372 $1,551,794 $1,675,937 $1,810,012 Maintenance and Operations $1,632,896 $2,250,908 $2,376,601 $2,465,225 Water Purchase Costs $2,562,447 $3,074,071 $3,230,820 $3,410,563 Subtotal Expenses $6,212,715 $6,876,772 $7,283,358 $7,685,799 Debt Service $103,850 $117,000 $0 $0 Cashflow $172,323 ($84,103)($233,701)($635,900) Water Financial Plan Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Revenue Adjustments 5-Year Increase FY 2026 38% FY 2027 23% FY 2028 5% FY 2029 5% FY 2030 5% Total CAGR 96.5% FY 2026 29% FY 2027 15% FY 2028 8% FY 2029 7% FY 2030 6% Total CAGR 81.7% CIP $44M Does more projects sooner $34M Pushes out projects Grants/Loans/Market Debt $25M Market Debt $9.5M SRF Loan $4.4M OCWD Loan $19M Market Debt $9.5M SRF Loan $4.4M OCWD Loan 10 Revenue adjustments show increased revenue above prior year revenue Water - Recommended CIP 11 WATER - SCENARIO 1 - RECOMMENDED CIP FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total Encumbered Rollover Projects $431,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $431,300 O-WT-1 Water Infrast. Replacement & Compliance Program $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 WT2701 Navy Reservoir Rehabilitation $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 WT1801 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 WT1603 Bolsa Chica Water Well Rehabilitation $0 $0 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,000,000 WT2401 Seal Way Sewer/Water Upgrade $0 $0 $150,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,150,000 WTXXXX Leisure World Well Reestablishment $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $6,000,000 SS1902 6th Street Alley Water/Sewer Replacement $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 WT1704 Lampson Ave Trans Main Repl. (to Seal Bch Blvd)$0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $3,000,000 $3,300,000 WT2102 College Park East Waterline Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $2,000,000 $2,200,000 WT2301 College Park West Water System Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 Subtotal $431,300 $850,000 $6,200,000 $7,550,000 $4,050,000 $5,750,000 $24,831,300 WT1902 Lampson Well Treatment System $0 $5,072,863 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,072,863 WT0904 Beverly Manor Water Pump Station Rehabilitation $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $8,000,000 WT2103 LCWA Watermain Lining $0 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 Subtotal - SRF and OCWD Loan Projects $0 $7,572,863 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $15,572,863 WT2001 Advanced Metering Infrastructure $0 $40,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $4,040,000 Total $431,300 $8,462,863 $10,200,000 $12,550,000 $7,050,000 $5,750,000 $44,444,163 FY 2025 to FY 2030 Year CIP $44,444,163 Allocation to Cost Causation Components SUPPLY EXTRA CAPACITY (Peaking Costs) CONSERVATION METER MAINTENANCE CUSTOMER SERVICE Cost of Service 12 Volumetric Rate ($/HCF)Fixed Charge by Meter Size BASE DELIVERY / COSTS Bi-monthly Fixed Charge & Leisure World Assumptions (Shown for Illustrative Purposes) •Certain costs centers: Meter Maintenance and Capacity are allocated to customers classes based on the number and size of meters •Prior assumption: Leisure World (LW) needed the equivalent of one 6” meter •Revised to 2 – 12” meters •LW would no longer be charged for their 4 private fire accounts •LW bi-monthly fixed charge = $14,916 equates to a $2.26 increase per dwelling unit 13 1/1/2025 Fixed Charges with LW Fixed Charges with LW Scenario 1 Difference Scenario 2 Difference Meter Size Current 1 - 6" Meter 2 - 12" Meters $$ 5/8''$52.38 $72.28 $70.68 ($1.60)($1.50) 3/4''$52.38 $72.28 $70.68 ($1.60)($1.50) 1"$77.92 $107.53 $104.87 ($2.66)($2.49) 1.5"$150.93 $208.28 $202.85 ($5.43)($5.08) 2"$228.33 $315.10 $306.50 ($8.59)($8.03) 3"$406.25 $560.63 $544.72 ($15.91)($14.87) 4"$675.94 $932.80 $906.18 ($26.62)($24.88) 6"$1,331.01 $1,836.79 $1,783.70 ($53.10)($49.64) 8"$2,128.92 $2,937.91 $2,852.83 ($85.08)($79.53) 10"$3,047.29 $4,205.26 $4,083.10 ($122.16)($114.19) 12" NA NA $7,458.19 NA NA 2" Aquatic Park $344.58 $475.52 $476.01 $0.49 $0.45 Aquatic Park includes a capital surcharge due to under sea pipelines Scenario 1 Proposed Water Bi-Monthly 5-Year fixed Charges (assumes 2 -12” meter for LW) 14 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Water 1/1/2025 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Bi-monthly Fixed Charges All Customers 5/8''$52.38 $70.68 $86.94 $91.29 $95.85 $100.64 3/4''$52.38 $70.68 $86.94 $91.29 $95.85 $100.64 1"$77.92 $104.87 $128.99 $135.44 $142.21 $149.32 1.5"$150.93 $202.85 $249.51 $261.99 $275.09 $288.84 2"$228.33 $306.50 $377.00 $395.85 $415.64 $436.42 3"$406.25 $544.72 $670.00 $703.50 $738.68 $775.61 4"$675.94 $906.18 $1,114.60 $1,170.33 $1,228.84 $1,290.28 6"$1,331.01 $1,783.70 $2,193.95 $2,303.64 $2,418.82 $2,539.77 8"$2,128.92 $2,852.83 $3,508.98 $3,684.43 $3,868.65 $4,062.08 10"$3,047.29 $4,083.10 $5,022.21 $5,273.32 $5,536.99 $5,813.84 12" Leisure World $1,331.01 $7,458.19 $9,173.58 $9,632.26 $10,113.87 $10,619.56 2" Aquatic Park $344.58 $476.01 $585.49 $614.76 $645.50 $677.78 Private Fire Charges 4"$54.42 $75.10 $92.37 $96.99 $101.84 $106.93 6"$158.07 $218.14 $268.31 $281.72 $295.81 $310.60 8"$336.86 $464.87 $571.79 $600.38 $630.39 $661.91 10"$605.79 $835.99 $1,028.27 $1,079.68 $1,133.67 $1,190.35 12" NA $1,350.35 $1,660.94 $1,743.98 $1,831.18 $1,922.74 Proposed Water Volumetric Rates ($ / hcf) 15 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 1/1/2025 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Volumetric Rates ($ /hcf) Residential Tier 1 $3.77 $5.20 $6.40 $6.72 $7.06 $7.41 Tier 2 $3.99 $5.51 $6.77 $7.11 $7.47 $7.84 Multi-Family Residential & Leisure World Tier 1 $3.77 $5.20 $6.40 $6.72 $7.06 $7.41 Tier 2 $3.94 $5.44 $6.69 $7.02 $7.37 $7.74 Commercial $3.77 $5.20 $6.40 $6.72 $7.06 $7.41 Irrigation $3.86 $5.33 $6.55 $6.88 $7.22 $7.58 City $3.82 $5.27 $6.48 $6.81 $7.15 $7.51 Aquatic Park $4.27 $5.89 $7.25 $7.61 $7.99 $8.39 16 Sewer Sewer Financial Outlook Without Revenue Increases •A debt service coverage ratio of 1.2 means the City has promised bondholders to set rates so that net cashflow (before CIP expenses) is about $650k (positive) •Revenue is decreasing due to lower interest earned in cash balances •Does not include capital projects 17 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 Projected Total Revenue $2,625,899 $2,589,328 $2,477,265 $2,410,373 Personnel $1,451,291 $1,319,707 $1,425,284 $1,539,306 Maintenance and Operations $758,140 $1,146,858 $1,204,201 $1,240,327 Subtotal Expenses $2,209,430 $2,466,565 $2,629,484 $2,779,633 Revenue Less Expenses $416,469 $122,763 ($152,219)($369,260) Debt Service $545,583 $545,623 $545,183 $544,263 Cashflow ($129,114)($422,860)($697,402)($913,523) Sunset Aquatic Park Pump Station About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Project will provide additional capacity and pump station upgrades. Overflows from this system would go directly into the Anaheim Bay and City would be fined. Due to previous force main failures, current flow is diverted to 2 - 2” mains across the Bolsa Chica Channel. Phase Financials •Construction: FY 2027-29 •Planned •$2.7 M construction value •Sunset Aquatic Park Equity Fund Constraints •Force mains are undersized and frequently have blockages •Coordination with Huntington Beach to receive wastewater 18 Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Revenue Adjustments 5-Year Increase FY 2026 34% FY 2027 21% FY 2028 14% FY 2029 13% FY 2030 4% Total CAGR 117.2% FY 2026 34% FY 2027 20% FY 2028 9% FY 2029 8% FY 2030 7% Total CAGR 102.5% CIP (today’s $)$19.2M •Does more projects sooner, compared to scenario 2 $15.7M •Pushes out projects Debt $14 M Market Debt $15 M Market Debt 19 34% is needed in the 1st year to meet debt covenants! Revenue adjustments show increased revenue above prior year revenue Proposed Sewer CIP 20 SEWER - SCENARIO 1 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total FYE 2023 Encumbered Rollover Projects $3,645,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,645,000 O-SS-2 Sewer Mainline Improvement Program $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,500,000 SS2303 Sunset Aquatic Park & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $200,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,700,000 WT2401 Seal Way Sewer/Water Upgrade $0 $0 $150,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $2,150,000 WT1801 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 SS1902 6th Street Alley Water/Sewer Replacement $0 $0 $0 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $2,600,000 SSXXXX Adolfo Lopez Pump Station & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 SS2204 Boeing Pump Station & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,500,000 $0 $1,700,000 SSXXXX Pump Station 35 Upgrades - Phase 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $3,000,000 $3,300,000 SSXXXX 1st Street Pump Station & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Total $3,645,000 $750,000 $3,200,000 $5,350,000 $2,350,000 $3,900,000 $19,195,000 FY 2025 to FY 2030 CIP $19,195,000 Proposed Sewer Bi-Monthly 5-Year Rates & Charges FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Fixed Charge Current 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Single-Family Residential Fixed Charge $48.04 $64.37 $77.89 $88.80 $100.34 $104.35 Customers with a Fixed Charge and Volumetric Rate Current 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Multi-Family Residential Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.98 $2.26 $2.55 $2.65 Volumetric Rate ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.49 $7.39 $8.35 $8.69 Commercial and City Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.98 $2.26 $2.55 $2.65 Volumetric Rate ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.49 $7.39 $8.35 $8.69 Leisure World Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.98 $2.26 $2.55 $2.65 Flat Rate $2,198.06 $2,945.40 $3,563.93 $4,062.89 $4,591.06 $4,774.70 Navy Sewer Meter Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.98 $2.26 $2.55 $2.65 Sewer Meter Volumetric ($/hcf)$0.24 $0.32 $0.39 $0.44 $0.50 $0.52 Aquatic Park Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.98 $2.26 $2.55 $2.65 Volumetric Charge ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.49 $7.39 $8.35 $8.69 Sewer Service Equity Charge $997.50 $1,336.65 $1,617.35 $1,843.78 $2,083.47 $2,166.80 Sewer Capital Equity Charge $1,322.00 $1,771.48 $2,143.49 $2,443.58 $2,761.24 $2,871.6921 22 Bi-Monthly Customer Bill Impacts Proposed First Year Combined Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Bi-Monthly) 23 Proposed Multi-Year Combined Residential Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Annual & Bi-Monthly) 24 Proposed Leisure World - Combined Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Annual) 25 ≈$19 bi-monthly increase per dwelling unit or $9.51 monthly for first year Summary •Proposed revenue increases will restore the utilities’ financial health so the City can: ›Continue to deliver safe, reliable water and sewer services ›Maintain and upgrade aging infrastructure ›Maintain good credit standing and be able to issue debt •Consequences of delaying: ›$222k/month for water and $67k/month for sewer ›Projects may be affected if delayed –LCWA Watermain Lining and Beverly Manor Well assume an SRF loan –Lampson Well Treatment System assumes an OCWD Producers Loan –Need to demonstrate that the City can pay current and future loans back ›WW enterprise remains in technical default •The rate study follows standard rate setting practice and uses available data to determine the cost to serve each class 26 27 Myths Myth Busters •Myth 1: The Water & Sewer Enterprise Funds will subsidize the General Fund. o FACT: By law, revenues generated by water and sewer rates may only be used for costs of providing water and sewer services. •Myth 2: Nothing was done with the revenue from the last rate study. o FACT: On the contrary, many of the projects identified in the 2020 Rate Study have already been designed. However, due to various external factors, construction has been delayed. As a result, funding through debt issuance has not yet been pursued since the projects have not moved into the construction phase. 28 Myth Busters •Myth 3: The CIP schedules are not attainable. o FACT: While the Option 1 CIP schedule is ambitious, it is not unattainable—many of the projects are already designed and considered "shovel ready." Option 2 includes fewer projects, making its completion timeline even more manageable. •Myth 4: Delays won't have an impact. o FACT: Each month of delay is approximately $300k of revenue loss that could have been used towards enhancing your utility. Also, delays jeopardize external funding opportunities to help augment burden to rate payers and construction windows. •Myth 5: The rates are subsidizing future developments. o FACT: The rates fund current system needs to keep your water and sewer systems reliable today.They are not designed to subsidize or fund future developments. 29 30 Summary of Objections and Responses 31 AB 2257 •Established a formal written objection procedure for ratepayers to raise specific legal concerns •Must include specific grounds for alleging noncompliance of the proposed rates with Proposition 218 •Designed to address disputes during public participation period •Permits agency to resolve issues during participation period •Creates an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure •Requires ratepayers to bring a specific legal objection prior to the deadline established as part of the rate setting process to preserve their ability to file a legal challenge 31 AB 2257 Objection Tally 32 Written Objections Received 3 As of the 5 p.m. deadline on July 7, 2025, the City received: 33 Objection Letter #1 a.Object to proposed water and wastewater rates, citing inequity in the rate structure based on: o Fixed charges are not “per door,” o Lower use parcels unfairly pay less, o Burden on those without ability to pay (i.e. fixed- and low-income, large families) o Lack of per door fees leads to unstable revenues a.Object to wastewater rates, citing rate Single-Family customers are subsidizing others b.Object to Sunset Aquatic Park sewer rates, citing all other customers are subsidizing Aquatic Park Written Objections Summary Objection Letter #3 a.Proposed rates are excessive and not proportional to her property b.Object to proposed rates, stating they appear to exceed proportional cost of service to the objector’s property. c.Object that the City has not demonstrated that the revenues will be used exclusively for each utility d.The notice lacks sufficient detail to determine if the methodology is consistent with Constitutional requirements, citing detailed financial analysis and rate modeling was not available to the public e.The public process lacked transparency 34 Objection Letter #2 a.Object to proposed rates, citing they are excessive b.Object that the proposed rates circumvent Proposition 13 c.Object to personnel compensation increases, citing they are unjustified d.Object to public process, citing lack of transparency Written Objections Summary Response Summary The City acknowledges residents' concerns about proposed water and sewer rate increases but asserts that they are necessary, legally compliant, based on detailed studies, and designed to ensure the long- term reliability and equitable funding of essential water and wastewater services. •Written Objections did not demonstrate noncompliance with Proposition 218; therefore, the publicly noticed and available proposed rates, 2025 Financial Plan and 2020 Cost of Service Study Report stand. •Water and Sewer revenues are restricted and accounted for in Water Enterprise and Sewer Enterprise Funds, separate from the City’s General Fund. Rate revenues pay for water and sewer expenses only. •The City undergoes an independent annual financial audit to ensure compliance with generally accepted accounting principles in which expenditures from utility Enterprise Funds are noted. •Written Responses to the Written Objections are included in the City’s Administrative Record and included in the Public Hearing agenda packet. 35 Response Summary – 5 Themes 1. Necessity of Rate Increases - Objections did not provide specific information on alleged non-compliance with Proposition 218. Proposed rate increases are deemed essential and not arbitrary, driven by critical factors such as: o Aging Infrastructure: The need for substantial investment in repairing, replacing, and modernizing old water and wastewater systems to ensure reliability, prevent failures, and meet public health standards. o Regulatory Compliance: Adhering to increasingly stringent federal and state environmental and public health regulations, which require significant capital and operational adjustments. o Rising Operational Costs: Covering the increasing expenses for supplies, energy, chemicals, and maintenance necessary for daily system operation. o Long-Term Financial Stability: Ensuring a stable financial foundation for the utility to meet current needs, fund future projects, and maintain reserves to avoid larger, unpredictable increases. 36 Response Summary – 5 Themes 2.Equity in Billing Structure: •Fair Cost Allocation: While promoting conservation through use-based billing, the overall rate structure aims to recover fixed infrastructure costs equitably from all users. All customers with an account, even if they use no water, pay the fixed charge. A customer pays in proportion to their 1) water use (on average is about 70% of the bill), 2) number of meters, and 3) meter size. •Fixed Cost Recovery: The proposed water fixed charge recovers the following costs: o Customer Billing: only customers who get a bill cause this cost and therefore can be charged for it The following are proportional to meter size: o Meter Maintenance: only customers with meters can be charged for it because the costs are associated with meter maintenance and meter reading o Fixed Capacity (infrastructure): capacity costs are assessed in proportion to a customer’s meter size as meter size is proportional to potential water use that affects infrastructure needs. Potential demand to serve multi-family dwellings is reflected in their meter size. For example, a SFR ¾” meter fixed charge is currently $26/month compared to a MFR 4” meter fixed charge is $338/month. Continued next slide 37 Response Summary – 5 Themes 2.Equity in Billing Structure Continued: •Single Family subsidizing other classes: Single family class pays in proportion to their estimated sewer discharge •Subsidies and Sunset Aquatic Park: The City is committed to ensuring all customer classes, including multi-family units and specific users like Sunset Aquatic Park, contribute their fair share based on their use and impact on the system, in line with Proposition 218 which requires that no class subsidizes another. •The City implemented Sunset Aquatic Park charges specifically to address equity concerns: o Water - The fixed charge for Sunset Aquatic Park is higher than the fixed charge for other customers with the same meter size. This is to recover the added capital cost associated with the water line feeding Sunset Aquatic Park. o Sewer – Sunset Aquatic Park has a separate sewer service equity charge and sewer capital equity charge to recover the added costs associated with Sunset Aquatic Park sewer service. 38 Response Summary – 5 Themes 3. Justification for Personnel Compensation: Staff compensation is a significant part of the operational budget for any utility, as it relies on skilled personnel to manage complex systems, maintain infrastructure, and ensure compliance. The 8% annual personnel cost inflator is a comprehensive estimate that includes: •merit increases, •cost of living adjustments, •retirement costs, •insurance and •other legally obligated personnel-related expenses. It is based on recent cost trends and future obligations and is necessary to maintain service levels and staffing. The personnel inflator is not used to inflate capital improvement projects. There is a separate CIP inflator which is 5%, 4% , 3%, 3% and 3% for the 5-year proposed rates period. 39 Response Summary – 5 Themes 4. Compliance with Proposition 218 and Legal Standards: o Prop 218 (User Fees) vs Prop 13 (Taxes): Water and wastewater charges are considered property related fees, not property taxes, meaning Proposition 13 (pertaining to property taxes) does not apply. o Cost of Service Basis: All proposed rates are based on comprehensive, independent financial analysis and cost-of-service studies designed to ensure that revenues do not exceed the cost of service and that charges are proportional to the cost of serving each parcel, fulfilling Proposition 218 requirements. o Restricted Funds: Revenues derived from these rates are legally restricted and exclusively dedicated to the operation, maintenance, and capital improvement of the water and sewer systems through each utility Enterprise Fund, separate from the General Fund. 40 Response Summary – 5 Themes 5.Transparency and Public Process: •Adherence to Legal Process: The proposed rate adjustments followed the legally mandated Prop 218 process, including public notification and a Public Hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing provided an explanation of cost and inflation drivers, capital needs, how proposed rates were determined, and directed interested persons to the consultant's reports available on the website and from the City Clerk’s Office. •Transparent Public Process Included: o Multiple publicly-noticed City Council workshops (February 26, March 26, 2025) o Regular City Council Meetings (2023, 2024, 2025) o Community information sessions (2023, 2024, 2025: June 4 and June 14). o Meetings and information sessions were promoted across various City communication channels (website, media releases, social media, e-newsletters, and within the Public Hearing Notice). 41 Summary of Requests: 1.That the City Council conduct a public hearing to accept comments on the proposed water and sewer rate adjustments; and, 2.Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, that the City Council adopt Resolution 7668 responding to timely filed written objections to the proposed water and sewer rates pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 2257; and, 3.Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed water rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7669 establishing the water rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 4.Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, provided a majority protest against the proposed sewer rates does not exist, that City Council adopt Resolution 7670 establishing the sewer rates, effective August 1, 2025; and, 5.Receive and file the Water and Wastewater Financial Plan and Rate Study, prepared by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., dated June 17, 2025, as presented to the City Council at this meeting and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 42 43 End of Presentation Revenue must be used to cover the costs for which the charge was imposed The charge must be for a service that is actually used or immediately available The fee may not exceed the proportional cost to serve the parcel Proposition 218 Requires: Cannot collect more than what you need Must send a written notice to customers no less than 45 days before a public hearing 44 NOTE: Revenues collected from rates cannot be used for any other purpose. Utility Enterprise Funds are separate from the General Fund. Water Infrastructure 45 Beverly Manor Pump Station About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Pump station upgrade including new pumps, discharge piping, emergency generator, Variable Frequency Drives, and electric controls. Without Beverly Manor in full operation, system may not maintain adequate pressure and fire flow. Constructed in 1969, the booster station is responsible for connecting Beverly Manor Reservoir to the distribution system. Phase Financials •Construction: FY 2026-28 •Design is substantially completed •Production well in service. Fully manual operation. •$8M Construction Value •Anticipated SRF Funding Constraints •Antiquated system with no supporting parts for maintenance •Inability to fully pump reservoir water to distribution system Navy Reservoir Rehabilitation About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Tank provides necessary water storage to address water demand fluctuations, including emergency needs Navy Reservoir, constructed in 1963, has a usable storage capacity of 2.5 million gallons. Project will rehabilitate reservoir that has deteriorated due to corroded steel tank coating, will also rebuild the booster pumps. Phase Financials •Construction:FY 2026-28 •Assessment is completed. •Next phase is design. •$1.8 M Constraints •Timely completion to prevent further corrosion, which can lead to tank failure Water – Modified CIP (Absolute Minimum Required Projects) 48 WATER - SCENARIO 2 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total FYE 2024 Rollover Projects into FY 2025 $431,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $431,300 O-WT-1 Water Infrast. Replacement & Compliance Program $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 WT2701 Navy Reservoir Rehabilitation $0 $300,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,800,000 WT1801 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 WT1603 Bolsa Chica Water Well Rehabilitation $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 WTXXXX Leisure World Well Reestablishment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Subtotal $431,300 $1,350,000 $2,550,000 $1,050,000 $3,050,000 $6,050,000 $14,481,300 WT1902 Lampson Well Treatment System $0 $5,072,863 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,072,863 WT0904 Beverly Manor Water Pump Station Rehabilitation $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $8,000,000 WT2103 LCWA Watermain Lining $0 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 Subtotal - SRF and OCWD Loan Projects $0 $7,572,863 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $15,572,863 WT2001 Advanced Metering Infrastructure $0 $40,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $4,040,000 Total $431,300 $8,962,863 $6,550,000 $6,050,000 $6,050,000 $6,050,000 $34,094,163 FY 2025 to FY 2030 Year CIP $34,094,163 Modified Option Water Bi-Monthly 5-Year fixed Charges (assumes 2 -12” meter for LW) 49 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Water 1/1/2025 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Bi-monthly Fixed Charges All Customers 5/8''$52.38 $66.07 $75.98 $82.06 $87.81 $93.08 3/4''$52.38 $66.07 $75.98 $82.06 $87.81 $93.08 1"$77.92 $98.03 $112.73 $121.75 $130.28 $138.09 1.5"$150.93 $189.62 $218.07 $235.51 $252.00 $267.12 2"$228.33 $286.51 $329.49 $355.85 $380.76 $403.60 3"$406.25 $509.19 $585.57 $632.42 $676.69 $717.29 4"$675.94 $847.08 $974.14 $1,052.07 $1,125.72 $1,193.26 6"$1,331.01 $1,667.37 $1,917.47 $2,070.87 $2,215.83 $2,348.78 8"$2,128.92 $2,666.78 $3,066.79 $3,312.14 $3,543.98 $3,756.62 10"$3,047.29 $3,816.81 $4,389.33 $4,740.48 $5,072.31 $5,376.65 12" Leisure World $1,331.01 $6,971.79 $8,017.56 $8,658.96 $9,265.09 $9,821.00 2" Aquatic Park $344.58 $444.96 $511.71 $552.64 $591.33 $626.81 Private Fire Charges 4"$54.42 $70.20 $80.73 $87.19 $93.29 $98.89 6"$158.07 $203.91 $234.50 $253.26 $270.98 $287.24 8"$336.86 $434.55 $499.73 $539.71 $577.49 $612.14 10"$605.79 $781.47 $898.69 $970.58 $1,038.53 $1,100.84 12" NA $1,262.29 $1,451.63 $1,567.76 $1,677.51 $1,778.16 Modified Option Water Volumetric Rates ($ / hcf) 50 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 1/1/2025 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Volumetric Rates ($ /hcf) Residential Tier 1 $3.77 $4.86 $5.59 $6.04 $6.46 $6.85 Tier 2 $3.99 $5.15 $5.92 $6.39 $6.84 $7.25 Multi-Family Residential & Leisure World Tier 1 $3.77 $4.86 $5.59 $6.04 $6.46 $6.85 Tier 2 $3.94 $5.08 $5.84 $6.31 $6.75 $7.16 Commercial $3.77 $4.86 $5.59 $6.04 $6.46 $6.85 Irrigation $3.86 $4.98 $5.73 $6.18 $6.62 $7.01 City $3.82 $4.93 $5.67 $6.12 $6.55 $6.94 Aquatic Park $4.27 $5.51 $6.33 $6.84 $7.32 $7.76 Modified Option Sewer CIP 51 SEWER - SCENARIO 2 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 Total FYE 2024 Projects rolled over into FYE 2025 $3,645,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,645,000 O-SS-2 Sewer Mainline Improvement Program $0 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $3,750,000 SS2303 Sunset Aquatic Park & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $200,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,700,000 WT1801 SCADA Improvement Upgrade Project $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $250,000 SS2204 Boeing PS & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,500,000 $0 $1,700,000 SSXXXX PS#35 Upgrades - Phase 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $3,000,000 $3,300,000 SSXXXX Adolfo Lopez PS & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 SSXXXX 1st Street PS & Forcemain Upgrade $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Total $3,645,000 $1,000,000 $3,300,000 $1,000,000 $2,600,000 $4,150,000 $15,695,000 FY 2025 to FY 2030 CIP $15,695,000 52 Modified Option Sewer Bi-Monthly 5-Year Rates & Charges FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 FYE 2029 FYE 2030 Fixed Charge Current 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Single-Family Residential Fixed Charge $48.04 $64.37 $77.25 $84.20 $90.94 $97.30 Customers with a Fixed Charge and Volumetric Rate Current 8/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 7/1/2029 Multi-Family Residential Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.96 $2.14 $2.31 $2.47 Volumetric Rate ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.43 $7.01 $7.57 $8.10 Commercial and City Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.96 $2.14 $2.31 $2.47 Volumetric Rate ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.43 $7.01 $7.57 $8.10 Leisure World Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.96 $2.14 $2.31 $2.47 Flat Rate $2,198.06 $2,945.40 $3,534.48 $3,852.58 $4,160.79 $4,452.05 Navy Sewer Meter Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.96 $2.14 $2.31 $2.47 Sewer Meter Volumetric ($/hcf)$0.24 $0.32 $0.39 $0.42 $0.45 $0.49 Aquatic Park Fixed Charge $1.22 $1.63 $1.96 $2.14 $2.31 $2.47 Volumetric Charge ($/hcf)$4.00 $5.36 $6.43 $7.01 $7.57 $8.10 Sewer Service Equity Charge $997.50 $1,336.65 $1,603.98 $1,748.34 $1,888.21 $2,020.38 Sewer Capital Equity Charge $1,322.00 $1,771.48 $2,125.78 $2,317.10 $2,502.46 $2,677.64 Modified Option First Year Combined Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Bi-Monthly) 53 Modified Option Multi-Year Combined Residential Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Bi-Monthly) 54 Modified Option Leisure World - First Year Combined Water & Sewer Bill Impacts (Bi-Monthly) 55 ≈$15.20 bi- monthly increase per dwelling unit or $7.60 monthly Water Infrastructure Replacement & Compliance Program About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Replace aging infrastructure to improve reliability, meet regulatory compliance, and increase capacity to meet fire flow and pressure needs. Mainline emergency repairs are costly and will cause service disruptions. Program helps fund on-going state and federal regulatory compliance efforts, and methodically and systematically improves the aging water infrastructure, in particular areas that have shown deterioration and need for capacity. Phase Financials •Ongoing •Ongoing, especially 100-year-old pipes •$500,000 to $1M annually Constraints •30,000 linear feet of pipeline that is past its useful life identified in 2012. Thirteen years later, this number is higher. Bolsa Chica Well Rehabilitation About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Well improvements include replacing pumps, generators, motors, and a water treatment system. Pump failure may lead to water imports, which is double the cost of groundwater. The project will rehabilitate the groundwater well site that was built in 1979. Phase Financials •Construction: FY 2027-29 •Design is completed. •$4 M Constraints •Lampson Well needs to be fully operational before this well can be shutdown Advanced Metering Infrastructure About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline AMI provides numerous benefits, including: 1.Reduces in-person manual reading 2.Complies with ongoing water efficiency and conservation mandates 3.Provides on-demand customer user interface (i.e., leak detection) Existing manual meters are at the end or have surpassed serviceable life, warranting replacement. AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) is a two-way communication system to collect detailed metering information. Phase Financials •Construction: FY 2026-28 •Preliminary Study - Completed •Next phase is design •Water Enterprise - $4 M •BOR Grant – $2M Constraints •Not billing for water provided •Eliminate manual/in-person meter reading •Multi-year process SCADA Improvement Upgrade About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Supports operations and management monitoring and automation, to better address and respond to emergencies and reduce in-person response under time-sensitive constraints. Used to optimize energy use. SCADA – Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition for Water and Sewer Systems. Phase Financials •In Progress •Implementation at select locations •On-going & in progress •$50k/year Water •$50k/year Sewer Constraints •Replacement of antiquated equipment for compatibility Photos is for demonstration purposes only. Seal Way Water/Sewer Upgrade About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Upsize pipe from 6-inch to 8-inch to meet demands. Has had frequent water main breaks that can lead to service interruption,and sewer blockages that can lead to overflows. Area has frequent blockage and sewer cleaning needs. CCTV shows sewer mainline delamination. One of the older water/sewer mainlines in the city. Phase Financials •Construction:FY 2033-34 •Planned •$2.2 M Water •$2.2 M Sewer Constraints •Concrete alley, tight working quarters, high water table 6th Street Alley Water/Sewer Replacement About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Address sewer line offset and delamination, manhole upgrade, and waterline upsizing to meet demands. Delamination and/or offset in the lines will lead blockages & service interruptions. CCTV identified issues. Pipe joint sections can shift, sink, or be invaded by roots causing them to become unaligned with the rest of the pipe. Phase Financials Constraints •Construction: FY 2033 •Design is completed •Project on hold •$2.0M Water •$2.6M Sewer •Concrete alley, tight working quarters, high water tablePhotos are for demonstration purposes only. Lampson Transmission/CPE Waterline Improvements About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Increase the volume of water that can be delivered from Lampson Well and improve water pressure throughout the city. Upsizing Lampson Avenue transmission main to maintain pressure during peak demands. Project will run the span of Lampson Avenue from Seal Beach Boulevard to easterly City limits, in phases. Phase Financials Constraints •Phase I Construction: FY 2029-31 •Planned •$3.3 M for Lampson Transmission Phase I •$2.2M for Lampson Transmission Phase II •$2.2M for CPE Waterline Improvements •TBD College Park West Water System Improvements About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Establish an additional connection point to the College Park West neighborhood to provide an alternate water supply in the event of an emergency. Installation of a new emergency interconnection transmission line to enhance system reliability and provide greater failover capability, minimizing the risk of service disruption in an emergency. Phase Financials Constraints •Phase I Construction: FY 2028-29 •Planned •$3.3 M Water for Phase I •Negotiations with neighboring water agencies for emergency intertie Water Financial Plan Scenarios December 2023 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Revenue Adjustments 5-Year Increase FY 2024 33% FY 2025 25% FY 2026 17% FY 2027 12% FY 2028 10% Total CAGR 139.6% FY 2026 38% FY 2027 23% FY 2028 5% FY 2029 5% FY 2030 5% Total CAGR 96.5% FY 2026 29% FY 2027 15% FY 2028 8% FY 2029 7% FY 2030 6% Total CAGR 81.7% CIP $38M $44M Higher Due to Two Years of Inflation Does more projects sooner $34M Pushes out projects Grants/Loans/Market Debt $22M Market Debt $11M SRF Loan $25M Market Debt $9.5M SRF Loan $4.4M OCWD Loan $19M Market Debt $9.5M SRF Loan $4.4M OCWD Loan 64 Revenue adjustments show increased revenue above prior year revenue 65 Sewer Infrastructure Pump Station #35 About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Project will provide emergency sewage by-pass, mechanical/electrical upgrades, and emergency back-up power generation. This a very important pump station – an outage would cause sewer backups in the southern part of the City. Originally constructed in 1973, and subsequently upgraded. PS #35 is the main sewer station that serves the Hill, Bridgeport, Naval Weapons Station, Old Town. Financials •Phase I - Under construction •Phase II – FY 29/30 •$1.6 M construction value •$3.3 M Phase II Constraints •Critical system to transport wastewater to OCSan regional system •Noticeable increase of Fats, Oils, Grease (FOG) discharge Adolfo Lopez and Boeing Pump Stations About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Project will rehabilitate components and evaluate the feasibility of constructing a parallel force main. Pump station and electrical failures may result in wastewater leaching and system overflow, which can potentially be a substantial water quality fine. Adolfo Lopez Station was constructed in 2005; the Boeing Pump Station was constructed in 2003. Both stations are reaching a point where more frequent failures and repairs are needed, in particular electrical components. Furthermore, settling and corrosion is apparent in the piping and wet wells. Phase Financials •FY 2027-29 •Planned •$1.7M Adolfo Lopez •$1.7M Boeing Constraints •Force mains are original and near end of serviceable life. •Electrical repair requires frequent contractor call - outs. Sewer Mainline Improvement Program About Purpose & Benefits Project Timeline Program will address structural and capacity deficiencies, manhole upgrades, and point repairs. The sewer system is on average 80 years old. Inability to properly convey wastewater may result in blockages, overages, and ultimately a health hazard. Continuous repair of sewer infrastructure per CCTV assessment to address deficiencies (e.g., cracks, offsets, delamination, capacity, flow). Phase Financials •Ongoing •CCTV Analysis (2023) •Next target area – The Hill/Old Town •$500,000 to $750,000 annually Constraints •On-going CCTV/cleaning per state requirements •Aging infrastructure that was not built for existing demands