February 1, 2024
Mayor Oglesby and Members of the Seaside City Council,
LandWatch submits the following comments with regard to Item 8. J included in the agenda for today’s Seaside City Council General Meeting.
LandWatch recommends that the City add language under Section 5 of the SOW clearly stating that Consultant will identify and justify greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets while also identifying actionable steps to achieve those targets. This language should be added to both the task description and the deliverables section for Task 5. The SOW should also clarify whether the CAAP is intended to provide a basis to streamline future CEQA review of development projects.
Task 5 in the Scope of Work (SOW), which corresponds to Task 5 in the RFP, addresses adaptation measures but fails to include the identification of strategies to meet reduction targets as provided for in the RFP. Specifically, the RFP notes that “Consultant shall identify action items to reduce GHG emissions.” (Pg. 16). Neither the task description nor the deliverables for Task 5 in the SOW include identification of strategies or actions to reduce GHG emissions.
The RFP also states that the Consultant shall set goals identifying “emission reduction targets” that “align with statewide goals” and legislation. (Id). The Task 5 deliverables in the SOW do not include identification of these emission reduction targets.
In sum, Section 5 of the SOW is silent on the issue of how Consultant will identify and justify GHG reduction targets and how Consultant will set corresponding goals. While it does address adaptation strategy, there appears to be nothing in the scope of work that requires the Consultant to propose strategies to reduce GHG emissions in order to meet GHG reduction targets, which is what mitigation of the City’s share of the cumulative impacts of GHG requires. The reference to “risk mitigation” is not sufficient because “risk mitigation” is just another term for adaptation.
Furthermore, the absence of proposals to identify, and to justify based on substantial evidence, the needed GHG reduction strategies suggests that the CAAP will not meet CEQA’s requirements for a climate action plan to streamline future CEQA reviews. A climate action plan can obviate the need for GHG analysis for individual projects that conform to the plan, but such a plan must identify and justify needed GHG reduction strategies. Preparing a CEQA document for the adoption of the CAAP itself does not ensure that the CAAP enables streamlining.
Since the SOW defines the services that Jacob Green will be providing, and since reduction targets and a strategy for reaching those targets is not included in Section 5 of the SOW, it appears that these services are also not included in the overall contract pricing. If included, would the contract price of $149,500 increase? By what amount? As a matter of contract drafting, it is in the City’s best interest to clearly repeat the Section 5 RFP requirements in the SOW, and, in doing so, ensure that these requirements are included in the overall fee.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Best regards,
Michael
Michael D. DeLapa
Executive Director
