Morro Bay City Council
July 23, 2024

CITY OF MORRO BAY
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda

Tuesday, July 23, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

Veterans Memorial Hall, 209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Public Participation
Public participation is offered in the following ways:
• Community members may attend the meeting in person at the Morro Bay Veterans Hall.

Alternatively, members of the public may watch the meeting and speak during general Public Comment or on a specific agenda item by logging into the Zoom webinar using the information provided below. Please use the "raise hand" feature to indicate your desire to provide public comment.
•
Zoom webinar link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82722747698?pwd=aWZpTzcwTHlRTk9xaTlmWVNWRWFU QT09
•
• Password: 135692
Or Telephone Attendee: 1 (408) 638-0968 or 1 (669) 900-6833 or 1 (346) 248-7799; Webinar ID: 827 2274 7698; Password: 135692: Press *9 to raise hand for public comment.
•
• Meetings are also broadcast on cable Channel 20 and streamed on the City's website.

Community Members are encouraged to submit agenda correspondence via email to the City Council at [email protected] prior to the meeting. Agenda correspondence received by 10:00 a.m. on the meeting day will be posted on the City website. •
Pages

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REPORTS

4.a Closed Session Report

4.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations

4.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations

4.d Subcommittee Reports

1. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA

2. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)

3. Offshore Wind Energy

4. Downtown Design District

5. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS

5.a Townsend Public Affairs Legislative Update 5

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the audience wishing to address the Council on City business matters not on the agenda may do so at this time. For those desiring to speak on items on the agenda, but unable to stay for the item, may also address the Council at this time.

Public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to provide input to the governing body. To increase the effectiveness of the Public Comment Period, the City respectfully requests the following guidelines and expectations be followed:
•
Those desiring to speak are asked to complete a speaker slip, which are located at the entrance, and submit it to the City Clerk. However, speaker slips are not required to provide public comment. •
When recognized by the Mayor, please come forward to the podium to speak. Though not required, it is helpful if you state your name, city of residence and whether you represent a business or group. Unless otherwise established by the Mayor, comments are to be limited to three minutes.
•
All remarks should be addressed to Council, as a whole, and not to any individual member thereof.
•
The Council respectfully requests that you refrain from making slanderous, profane or personal remarks against any elected official, commission and/or staff.
•
Please refrain from public displays or outbursts such as unsolicited applause, comments or cheering.
•
Any disruptive activities that substantially interfere with the ability of the City Council to carry out its meeting will not be permitted and offenders will be requested to leave the meeting.
•
Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.
•
The Council in turn agrees to abide by its best practices of civility and civil discourse according to Resolution No. 07-19.
•

7. CONSENT AGENDA

Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.

Recommended Action
Approve consent agenda Items 7.a. through 7.f.

7.a Approval of Minutes
(City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.

1. May 23, 2024 - Special Closed Session Meeting 14

2. June 11, 2024 - Regular Council Meeting 16

3. June 25, 2024 - Regular Council Meeting 24

7.b Approval of Proclamations
(City Clerk)

1. Proclamation recognizing Latino Outreach Council's 30 Years of Service
34 (City Clerk)
Recommended Action
Approve as submitted.

7.c Morro Bay Library Meeting/Book Room Discussion Update 35 (City Manager)
Recommended Action
Receive and file this report.

7.d Update Regarding Ironman Event Contract Termination 37 (City Manager)
Recommended Action
Receive and file the report.

7.e Authorization to Join the League of California Cities Letter of Opposition to Assembly Bill 2560 (Alvarez)
40 (City Manager)
Recommended Action
Join the League of California Cities ("Cal Cities") in opposition of Assembly Bill 2560 (Alvarez).

7.f Appointment of James Costanzo to the Recreation and Parks Commission
63 (City Clerk)

Recommended Action
Appoint James Costanzo to the Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) to fill an unscheduled vacancy through January 31, 2026.

8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
None

9. BUSINESS ITEMS

9.a Downtown Design District Recommendations 66
(Community Development Department)
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the Downtown Design District ad hoc subcommittee meeting summary and direct staff to proceed with recommendations outlined in the report; and affirm the satisfactory completion of the Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee assignment.

9.b Approval of City Manager Contract Amendment 79
(City Attorney)
Recommended Action
Consider approval of the Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement for City Manager Yvonne Kimball and authorization for the Mayor to sign the Second Amendment on behalf of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay.

10. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

11. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting will be held on August 13, 2024.

This agenda is subject to amendment up to 72 hours prior to the date and time set for the meeting. Please refer to the agenda posted at City Hall, 595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442 for any revisions or call the Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205 for further information.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection upon request by calling the City Clerk's office at (805) 772-6205.

In compliance with the Americans Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a City meeting, please contact the Clerk's office 24 hours prior to the meeting to insure reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting.

WWW.TOWNSENDPA.COM
SACRAMENTO • WASHINGTON, DC
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL CALIFORNIA • SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Legislative Update

City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024 Slide 2 Legislative Calendar
$
Budget
Signed by
Governor
Jun
26 Legislature began
Summer Recess
Legislature
Reconvenes
Jul
3 Aug
5 Legislature
Adjourns for the
Year
Aug
21 Last day for
Governor to Sign
or Veto Bills
Sep
30

Slide 3
State Budget Problem
City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024
May Revise Budget Problem
Governor’s January Budget $37.9 billion
Additional Shortfall of Revenues $8.2 billion
Early Action Budget Package -$17.3 billion
Remaining Budget Problem $28.4 billion

Slide 4
State Budget Solution
• Budget Balancing Tactics: $28.4 billion
$8.9 Billion
in reserve funding
$14.6 Billion
reductions in General
Fund spending
$7.4 Billion
in internal revenue
borrowing
$1.1 Billion
in proposed funding
delays
$743 Million
in fund shifts between
accounts
$2.1 Billion
in deferrals
City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024 Page 8 of 85 Slide 5
AB 2537 (Addis) – Offshore Wind
• Allows the creation of a new Grant Program for building capacity within local communities and tribes to engage in the process of offshore wind development.
• To fund the grant, offshore wind leaseholders are required to contribute specifically to the grant account.

DETAILS
• Passed Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee 8-2-1 • Currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Supported by City of Morro Bay, County of San Luis Obispo, SLO Coast Alliance.

City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024
STATUS

Slide 6
AB 2560 (Alvarez) – DBL in Coastal Zone
• Requires Local Coastal Programs to conform with Density Bonus Laws by January 1, 2026.
• Expands Coastal Commission authority to require housing policies and programs in Local Coastal Programs.
• Allows Density Bonus Law in the coastal zone.

DETAILS
City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024
• Passed Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee 11-0 • Currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
• Opposed by CalCities, Contract Cities Association, and several coastal cities.

STATUS

Slide 7
Public Safety Legislative Package
Permits a peace officer to
make an arrest for
misdemeanor shoplifting
even if the violation was not
committed in the officer’s
presence. Maintains the
officer must have probable
cause to believe the person
committed shoplifting.

AB 2943 (Zbur & Robert Rivas)
Shoplifting
Allows theft, organized retail
theft, and receiving stolen
property charges against
the same defendant(s) that
occur in different counties to
be consolidated into a
single trial. Any county in
which a charged theft
occurred would have
jurisdiction.

AB 1779 (Irwin)
Theft Trial Consolidation
Creates a new and
separate crime of forcibly
entering a vehicle with the
intent to commit a theft
inside, punishable by either
a misdemeanor or a felony.

Removes requirement that
vehicle owner prove the
vehicle was locked to
establish crime.

SB 905 (Wiener)
Theft from a Vehicle
City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024 Page 11 of 85 Slide 8
November 2024 Ballot Initiatives
Measures Qualified for Ballot
Proposition 4 Allocates $10 billion to climate initiatives such as safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, nature-based climate solutions, climatesmart, sustainable, and resilient farms, park creation and outdoor access, and clean air programs.

Proposition 5 Lowers the vote threshold, from two-thirds to 55%, for bonds supporting low-income housing, road and transit expansions, parks, wildfire resilience, and public infrastructure projects.

Proposition 33 Prohibits the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent-control ordinances.

Proposition 36 Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.

Measures Not Qualified for Ballot
Taxpayer Protection Act Removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court because it would have made it difficult for state and local governments to maintain or enact new taxes and fees.

City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024 Page 12 of 85 Slide 9
Questions?
Christopher Townsend
President
[email protected]
Eric O’Donnell
Director
[email protected]
Spencer Street
Senior Associate
[email protected]
City of Morro Bay: Legislative Update: July 23, 2024 Page 13 of 85 1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
May 23, 2024, 3:00 p.m.

City Hall Conference Room
595 Harbor Street, Morro Bay, CA 93442
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Laurel Barton
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Jennifer Ford
Staff Present: City Manager Yvonne Kimball
City Attorney Chris Neumeyer
Finance Director Emily Conrad
Human Resources/Risk Manager Rachael Hendricks
_____________________________________________________________________

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m., with all members present.

2. SUMMARY OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

3. CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items on the agenda; seeing none, the public comment period was closed.

4. THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION

4.a CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: Rachael Hendricks, Human Resources/Risk Manager; Yvonne Kimball, City Manager
Employee Organizations: Morro Bay Firefighters' Association; Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) Local 620; and Unrepresented Management, Confidential and Executive Employees

4.b CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representative: Rachael Hendricks, Human Resources/Risk Manager; Emily Conrad, Finance Director

2 Unrepresented employee, as defined by Government Code subdivision 54957.6: City Attorney

4.c CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representative: Chris F. Neumeyer, City Attorney Unrepresented employee, as defined by Government Code subdivision 54957.6: City Manager

5. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened in Open Session. The Council did not take any reportable action in accordance with the Brown Act.

6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:31 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk

1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
June 11, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

Veterans Memorial Hall, 209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Laurel Barton
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Jennifer Ford
Staff Present: City Manager Yvonne Kimball
City Attorney Chris Neumeyer
Finance Director Emily Conrad
Public Works Director Greg Kwolek
Interim Comm Dev Director Michael Codron
Fire Chief Dan McCrain
Management Analyst Janeen Burlingame
Police Commander Tony Mosqueda
Consultant Dan Heimel, Confluence Engineering Services, Inc. _____________________________________________________________________

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 5:33 pm, with all members present.

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=BIgbMl5uK8P8BSqn&t=45
Mayor Wixom recognized two community members who recently passed. Mary Leizear who was a volunteer in the community and William Billy Welles who was known for his marine construction work on the waterfront.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REPORTS

4.a Closed Session Report
City Attorney Neumeyer announced no reportable action was taken in closed session.

4.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations

2 https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=60TFqmSRxXYywcNH&t=128

4.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=RiEFrMKT_DTxnNwV&t=696
A Certificate of Appreciation for his service as Interim Community Development Director was presented to Michael Codron.

4.d Subcommittee Reports
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=4dWtbmQrzyp6CWAI&t=924
a. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
b. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
c. Offshore Wind Energy
d. Downtown Design District

5. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=xEqTt7K_xVQYbC10&t=1076  Ken Vesterfelt, Morro Bay, spoke on the Annual Morro Bay Car Show held in May, thanked the Rotary Club of Morro Bay for their barbecuing efforts and all the volunteers involved.
 Rigmor, Morro Bay, spoke against the ceasefire resolution and commented on various topics.
 David Yohe, Morro Bay, spoke in favor and asked the City Council to consider agendizing a ceasefire resolution at a future meeting.  Eden Baily, Santa Maria, urged the City Council to consider agendizing a ceasefire resolution at a future meeting.
 Garry Johnson, Morro Bay, commented on the proposed BESS project.  Carolyn Krueger, Morro Bay, urged the City Council to consider agendizing a ceasefire resolution at a future meeting.
 Karen Aguilar, representing Morro Bay Beautiful, stated that the prototype for the trash cans at the Embarcadero were nearly complete and thanked staff for helping to make this happen.
 Robert Skinner provided a copy of the ceasefire resolution to the City Council and spoke in favor of the ceasefire resolution.

3  Terry Simons, Morro Bay, shared photographs and spoke regarding those living in campers in Morro Bay neighborhoods and the events that take place at these locations.
 Jackie Garza, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the ceasefire resolution.  Andrew Gould, San Luis Obispo Cal Poly Student, spoke in favor and asked the City Council to consider agendizing a ceasefire resolution at a future meeting.
 Steven Page, passed out a document that he spoke from and urged the City Council to agendize the creation of a Morro Bay Energy Storage Advisory Board which would research new methods of energy storage utilizing the old PG&E power plant site.
 Drew Jacobson, Cambria, stated that he is a mooring owner in Morro Bay and commented on the skiff permit program, opined that the permit policy was poorly written and hopes the City Council will consider amending this policy before the July 1st start date.
 Denise Jacobson, Cambria, stated that she is a mooring owner in Morro Bay and opined that she has not been given the correct information about her lease and feels uncomfortable signing the contract.  Gregory Anderson, Morro Bay, stated that he is a local liveaboard in Morro Bay, and hopes the City Council will consider amending the skiff policy or put a pause on it.
 Barry Branin, Morro Bay, suggested review of the existing sign ordinance and hoped a new sign ordinance would be put in place.
 Nancy Cooper, Morro Bay, stated that she is a mooring owner and agreed with issues raised by the previous speakers.
 Joe Silano, Morro Bay, spoke in frustration about the skiff storage permit program and asked staff to maintain the docks.
 Steve Yarling, Morro Bay, gave a brief history of his background and expressed his concerns with the Harbor Department.
 An unnamed individual recognized William "Wild Bill" Welles who recently passed and gave his condolences to his wife Kathy and commented on various topics.
 Korrin Alpers, stated that she is a mooring owner and that she never received her agreement and asked that the skiff policy be extended.  An unnamed individual spoke in support and asked the City Council to consider agendizing a ceasefire resolution at a future meeting.  An unnamed individual offered comments.

4  Linda Winters, Morro Bay, thanked staff who offered to help her while she recovered from a recent surgery and commented on various topics.  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, encouraged the City Council write the ceasefire resolution and not take sides.

End of public comment.

Staff responded to issues raised during public comment.

7. CONSENT AGENDA
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=2CKFSY8lCGv1Ja4D&t=4335 Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.

Mayor Wixom pulled Items 7.b. and 7.c. from the Consent Agenda.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Items 7.a., 7.d., and 7.e.; seeing none, the public comment period was closed.

Council Member Landrum pulled Item 7.e.

Public Works Director Kwolek and Confluence Engineering Consultant Heimel gave a presentation on Items 7.b. and 7.c.

Mayor Wixom reopened up public comment on Items 7.b. and 7.c. https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=Iw1OMHgc44oiwrmK&t=6521  Terry Simons, Morro Bay, spoke on Items 7.b. and 7.c.  Unnamed individual, spoke on Item 7.b.
 Margaret Carmon, Morro Bay, spoke on Item 7.b.
 Bill Martin, spoke on Items 7.b. and 7.c.
 Linda Donnelly, Morro Bay, spoke on past history with Carollo Engineering and commented on various topics.
 Nattalia Merzoyan, Morro Bay, spoke on Item 7.b.
 Betty Winholtz, spoke on Items 7.b. and 7.c and commented on various topics.

End of public comment
Staff responded to questions raised during public comment.

Motion by Mayor Wixom
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Approve Items 7.a. and 7.d. as presented.

5 Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford
CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.a Approval of Proclamations
Approve as submitted.
a. Proclamation declaring the third Saturday in June 2024 as "Juneteenth Day"

7.b Professional Services Agreement/Amendments for Engineering Support for the implementation of the Recycled Water Component of the Water Reclamation Facility Program
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=VUrHypecztVJxSHK&t=4491 Motion by Mayor Wixom
Seconded by Council Member Edwards
Authorize the City Manager to execute:

1. An agreement with Cannon to provide design and engineering services during construction (ESDC) for the Recycled Water Facilities component of the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Program in an amount not to exceed $1,374,396, which includes a 10% contingency budget and optional tasks executable by the City Manager; and

2. An agreement amendment with Confluence Engineering Solutions (ConfluenceES) to provide recycled water program management support services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 for the WRF Program in the amount of $339,913 for a not to exceed agreement amount of $967,532, and to extend the agreement term to June 30, 2025; and

3. A non-compensable agreement amendment with Carollo Engineers to reallocate remaining budget to permitting and funding support tasks for the WRF Program and to extend the agreement term to December 31, 2026; and

4. An agreement amendment with GSI Water Solutions, Inc. (GSI) to provide injection well exploratory drilling oversight support services for the archeologic and hydrogeologic testing in the amount of $39,600 for a not to exceed agreement amount of $1,351,363.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford

6 CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.c Professional Services Agreement for Cannon for design and engineering services during construction of a Morro Basin Extraction Well
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=VUrHypecztVJxSHK&t=4491 Motion by Mayor Wixom
Seconded by Council Member Edwards
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Cannon to provide design and engineering services during construction (ESDC) for a Morro Basin Extraction Well in an amount not to exceed $393,697, which includes a 10% contingency budget executable by the City Manager.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.d San Luis Obispo County Regional Special Weapons and Tactics Team Memorandum of Understanding
Adopt Resolution No. 33-24 Authorizing the Chief of Police to sign an updated Memorandum of Understanding for the city’s participation in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Special Weapons and Tactics Team (Regional SWAT Team).

7.e Morro Bay Parking Lot Rehabilitation Notice of Completion https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=LHHcxW7p92cmYkkz&t=4448 Council Member Landrum appreciated the project had been completed under budget.

Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Council Member Barton

1. Accept the work as performed by Ramsey Asphalt and
Construction; and

2. Authorize issuance and recording of the Notice of Completion; and

3. Authorize the reallocation of the unspent funds to the Pavement Management Program.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford CARRIED (5 to 0)

7 8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8.a Public Hearing to Report on Delinquent Solid Waste Collection Accounts and Adopt Resolution No. 34-24 Authorizing San Luis Obispo County Assessor to Assess Amounts Due on Delinquent Solid Waste Collection Accounts as Tax Leins Against the Properties The City Council took a brief recess at 7:58 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:07 p.m. with all members present.
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=zWtDmUgIpjdvKI6M&t=9263 Public Works Director Kwolek and Management Analyst Burlingame presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 8.a.
 Terry Simons, Morro Bay, expressed disappointment with the amount of staff time and the amount of public monies spent to collect the little amount of $1,975 as stated in the report and questioned why the City is involved.
 Nattalia Merzoyan, Morro Bay, stated that her solid waste bill increased by 50% in the last year or two, and sympathizes for those residents who are behind in making payments and also questioned why the City is involved.

End of public comment.

Motion by Mayor Wixom
Seconded by Council Member Landrum
Conduct a public hearing to receive the report on delinquent solid waste collection fees, hear any objections or protests to the report, authorize the addition of the City’s 2% administration fee to the delinquent fees, and adopt Resolution No. 34-24 authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Tax Assessor to assess amounts due on delinquent solid waste collection accounts as tax liens against the properties. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 5473, this Resolution should be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members of the City Council.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford CARRIED (5 to 0)

9. BUSINESS ITEMS

9.a Amendment No. 8 to Contract Services Agreement with Aleshire & Wynder, LLP for City Attorney Services
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=JrAKcKqX1Mx0PIlb&t=10030

8 Finance Director Conrad presented the report and responded to Council inquiries
Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 9.a.
 Terry Simons, Morro Bay, expressed that he has developed a warm relationship with the City Attorney over the last year and hopes to continue this relationship and questioned why the amendment was not attached to the staff report.
 Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, expressed disappointment that during closed session Council may have looked at comparisons regarding in-house attorneys and opined that the city does not need all the services that the City Attorney's firm offers.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Barton
Seconded by Council Member Ford
Approve Amendment No. 8 to the contract services agreement with Aleshire & Wynder, LLP for city attorney services.

Ayes (3): Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford
Noes (2): Mayor Wixom, and Council Member Landrum
CARRIED (3 to 2)

10. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
https://youtu.be/gGb5VJ9vXAI?si=ybGWDtx8_VljtuP4&t=10692 Council Member Landrum requested Council draft a letter of support to the County for the Friends of the Library's continued use of the book sorting room.

Mayor Wixom requested staff bring back an update on the skiff storage policy at the next Council meeting before implementation begins.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
/s/ Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk

1 MINUTES - MORRO BAY CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
June 25, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

Veterans Memorial Hall, 209 Surf St., Morro Bay, CA
Members Present: Mayor Carla Wixom
Council Member Zara Landrum
Council Member Laurel Barton
Council Member Cyndee Edwards
Council Member Jennifer Ford
Staff Present: City Manager Yvonne Kimball
City Attorney Chris Neumeyer
City Clerk Dana Swanson
Public Works Director Greg Kwolek
Community Development Director Airlin Singewald
Police Chief Amy Watkins
Fire Chief Dan McCrain
Administrative Programs Manager Melissa Green
_____________________________________________________________________

1. ESTABLISH QUORUM AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wixom called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m., with all members present.

2. MOMENT OF SILENCE

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. REPORTS

4.a Closed Session Report
City Attorney Neumeyer announced no reportable action was taken in closed session.

4.b Mayor and Councilmembers' Reports, Announcements and Presentations
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=tboTfVbastoGp1S-&t=119

4.c City Manager Reports, Announcements and Presentations https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=omX__fKgttrAWh1s&t=427

4.d Subcommittee Reports

2 https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=EdXF2LcaRENr9-rk&t=831 a. Water Reclamation Facility & Morro Bay / Cayucos Sanitary District JPA
b. Morro Bay Power Plant (Vistra)
c. Offshore Wind Energy
d. Downtown Design District

5. RECOGNITION AND PRESENTATIONS

5.a Presentation of "Parks Make Life Better Month" Proclamation https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=4BMoq4w6kNXFLNYj&t=1394 Presented to Recreation Supervisor, Angelica Jepsen.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=oRXTIDRKnod-m-oE&t=1701 Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items not on the agenda.  BMC Eric Ceallaigh, Officer in Charge Morro Bay, USCG, introduced himself and looked forward to being involved in the community.  Tom Harrington, Morro Bay, spoke regarding Measure A-24.  Michael Oliveira, Morro Bay, expressed concern regarding the new skiff storage program.
 Laurie Allen, Morro Bay, commented on the County's plan to restrict access to the Morro Bay library book room.
 Garry Johnson, Morro Bay, spoke regarding potential for lithium battery failures and urged residents to vote yes on Measure A.
 Nancy Cooper, Morro Bay, asked the City to enforce the current skiff program before implementing a new policy.
 Lynda Merrill, Morro Bay, read letter from husband, Frank Merrill, regarding ballot measures.
 Jim Gross, Morro Bay, urged residents to vote against Measure A-24 and allow the City the ability to negotiate directly with the developer.  Joe Silano, Morro Bay, urged the City to enforce the skiff storage program established by Resolution 9.81 and stop the new skiff policy.  Linda Winters, Morro Bay, expressed gratitude to those who offered assistance following back surgery.

3  Adam Battenburg, Morro Bay, asked the City to pause the new skiff storage program and work with mooring owners toward a better solution.  Denise Jacobson, Cambria, expressed concern about the skiff storage contract.
 Pirate Steve Yarling, Morro Bay, spoke regarding new skiff storage program.
 Aaron Ochs, Morro Bay, spoke in favor of Measure A-24.  Andrea Lueker, spoke on behalf of REACT Alliance, working to ensure the community understands impacts of offshore wind.
 Mandy Davis, President of REACT Alliance, shared that since making presentation to City Council, they have made presentations all over the County about the impacts and consequences of offshore wind.  Bill Bowes, Morro Bay, commented on the City's need for additional revenues and was concerned Measure A-24 would take that away.  Barry Branin, Morro Bay, urged residents to support Measure A-24 as an opportunity to clean up the power plant brown zone.
 Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, commented on the County's plan to restrict use of the Library book room and urged the Council to meet with County to try to negotiate something different. If that were not successful, she suggested the City consider leaving the library system.  Michelle Leicester-Cadaret, Morro Bay, commented on the Otay Mesa battery storage facility fire and asked the City to take proactive measures to prevent use of illegal fireworks.
 An unnamed resident offered comments.
 Margaret Carman, Morro Bay, urged the City to address the County's plan to restrict access to the Library book room.
 Laurie Gillespie, Morro Bay, raised concern regarding parking issues and dying vegetation along San Jacinto, and noted Easter Street is in need of resurfacing.
 Jean Johnson, Morro Bay, called for the City to assert its right to speak with County Library director and Supervisor Gibson to reconsider the decision to close the Library book room.
 Carol Parchet, Morro Bay, commented on need for street paving.  Don Maruska spoke regarding the community's need to better understand the potential impacts of Measure A-24 and urged the City to explore the issue and AB 205 through the relevant agencies.

4  Judy Setting, Morro Bay, commented on Measure A-24.

End of public comment.

The City Council took a brief recess at 6:57 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:11 p.m. with all members present.

7. CONSENT AGENDA
Unless an item is pulled for separate action by the City Council, the following actions are approved without discussion. The public will also be provided an opportunity to comment on consent agenda items.
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=QV4b-dpQ9kvm9NPK&t=6050 Mayor Wixom opened public comment for items on the Consent Agenda.  Rita Johnson, Morro Bay, commented on the need for more information from both sides on Measure A-24.
 Jim Gross, Morro Bay, endorsed the inclusion of rebuttal arguments in the ballot pamphlet.
 Glenn Silloway, Morro Bay, spoke in support of adding rebuttal arguments for the ballot measure and urged residents to vote No on Measure A-24.  Marlys McPherson, Morro Bay, spoke in opposition to Measure A-24.  Jeff Eckles, Morro Bay, spoke in support of allowing rebuttal arguments for Measure A-24 and asked how the accuracy of the arguments would be judged and whether claims that aren't true would be printed in the voters guide.
 Judy Setting, Morro Bay, expressed concern about potential misinformation presented in arguments. She also requested a line item expenditure report for the Cloisters Assessment District.

End of public comment.

Council Member Landrum pulled Item 7.c.

Motion by Council Member Ford
Seconded by Mayor Wixom
Approve consent agenda items 7.a through 7.e, minus item 7.c.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Ford
CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.a Approval of Minutes

5 Approve as submitted.
a. May 28, 2024 - Special City Council Meeting
b. May 28, 2024 - Regular Council Meeting
c. June 11, 2024 - Special Closed Session Meeting

7.b Approval of Proclamations
Approve as submitted.
a. Proclamation declaring July 2024 as "Parks Make Life Better Month"

7.c General Municipal Election Resolutions for November 5, 2024 Election
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=zArs6sDZi3h1kdPi&t=6768 Council Member Edwards commented on the importance of allowing for rebuttal arguments to be filed for and against the measure and posed questions that she had hoped would be addressed in a report on the potential impacts of the measure. She suggested staff prepare a brief summary of what Measure A-24, the potential impacts and how it may relate to AB 205.

Motion by Council Member Edwards
Seconded by Council Member Landrum

1. Adopt Resolution No. 35-24 calling a general municipal election for November 5, 2024, and requesting consolidation of the election with the County, and Resolution No. 36-24 adopting regulations for candidate statements; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 37-24 allowing for the filing of rebuttal arguments to the primary written arguments in support of and opposing Measure A-24.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Ford
CARRIED (5 to 0)

7.d Resolutions approving Tentative Agreements and Successor MOUs for Morro Bay Peace Officers Assoc., SEIU Local No. 620, and Morro Bay Firefighters Assoc., and approving salaries and benefits for Unrepresented Confidential, Management, and Department Heads Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 38-24 approving the Tentative Agreement for and Successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as agreed

6 to by the Morro Bay Police Officers Association (“MBPOA”) with an effective date of July 1, 2024.

2. Adopt Resolution No 39-24 approving the Tentative Agreement for and Successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as agreed to by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) Local No. 620 with an effective date of July 1, 2024.

3. Adopt Resolution No. 40-24 approving the Tentative Agreement for, and Successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as agreed to by the Morro Bay Firefighters Association (MBFFA) with an effective date of July 1, 2024.

4. Adopt Resolution No. 41-24 approving the unrepresented Confidential employees' salary and benefits resolution effective July 1, 2024.

5. Adopt Resolution No. 42-24 approving the unrepresented Management employees' salary and benefits resolution with an effective date of July 1, 2024.

6. Adopt Resolution No. 43-24 approving the unrepresented Department Head employees' salary and benefits resolution with an effective date of July 1, 2024.

The terms of the proposed MOUs (Memorandum of Understanding) and Resolutions are within the authority parameters approved by the Council in closed session. Each union's membership has voted on and approved the proposals.

7.e Adopt Resolution No. 44-24 Revising the Terms of the City's Reimbursement Agreement with the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services to add the Deputy Chief and Seasonal Firefighter Job Classifications
Adopt Resolution No. 44-24 rescinding and replacing Resolution No. 62- 21 and revising the terms of the City’s reimbursement agreement to include the classifications of Deputy Chief and Seasonal Firefighter.

8. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

8.a Adoption of Resolution No. 45.24 Directing the Levy of the Annual Assessment for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=6nXsAWyPcGCQtngo&t=7454 Public Works Director Kwolek presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment on Item 8.a.

7 https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=ggHiNjXVI9Fcf2a5&t=7825  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, requested a detailed financial report of general fund contribution toward maintenance of the Cloisters Assessment District.
 Barry Branin, Morro Bay, felt some level of general fund support for Cloisters Park was appropriate.
 Nattalia Merzoyan, Morro Bay, questioned utility costs for the Assessment District.
 Dawn Beattie, Morro Bay, commented on the need to dredge the Cloisters pond for stormwater management and to remove
contaminants.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Ford
Seconded by Council Member Edwards
Adopt Resolution No. 45-24 approving the levy of the annual assessment for the Cloisters Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Ford
CARRIED (5 to 0)

8.b Adoption of Resolution No. 46-24 Directing the Levy of the Annual Assessment for the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=G1ytEYoryS7GbuVp&t=8362 Public Works Director Kwolek presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment for Item 8.b.
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=-2hmrCUF5dKKfGCe&t=8543  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, requested a more detailed reporting of maintenance costs.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Landrum
Seconded by Mayor Wixom

8 Adopt Resolution No. 46-24 approving the levy of the annual assessment for the North Point Natural Area Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Ford
CARRIED (5 to 0)

9. BUSINESS ITEMS

9.a Resolutions Approving Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 Operating and Capital Budgets; FY 24-25, FY 25-26 and FY 26-27 Salary Schedules; New Job Classifications; Investment Policy; and FY 24-25 GANN Appropriations Limit
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=aj88jVWNyLqR0n15&t=8699 Administrative Programs Manager Green presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment on Item 9.a.
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=u13OftG6ekLzyfqc&t=10335  Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, objected to $25K for a professional goals facilitator, increased funding for Information Technology, and excessive reserves. She urged the Council to prioritize and increase funding for street improvements.
 Barry Branin, Morro Bay, took issue with hiring more people when revenues are projected to decline.

End of public comment.

Staff responded to questions raised during public comment and Council inquiries.

Motion by Council Member Ford
Seconded by Council Member Barton
Staff recommends the City Council:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 47-24 adopting the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Operating and Capital Budgets; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 48-24 approving the FY 2024-25, FY 2025- 26, and FY 2026-27 Salary Schedules; and

3. Adopt Resolution No. 49-24 approving Recreation Specialist and Assistant to the City Manager/Public Relations Manager Job Classifications and Job Descriptions; and

9 4. Adopt Resolution No. 50-24 readopting the City’s Investment Policy; and

5. Adopt Resolution No. 51-24 setting the FY 2024-25 GANN Appropriations Limit at $35,461,193.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, and Council Member Ford CARRIED (5 to 0)

9.b Council Consideration to Affirm Staff Authority to Execute Amendment to State Revolving Fund (SRF) Construction Loan Agreement
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=yDteRP2zJQzcU8e7&t=12227 Public Works Director Kwolek presented the report and responded to Council inquiries.

There was Council consensus to go past 9:30 p.m. to finish this item.

Mayor Wixom opened public comment on Item 9.b.
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=QVyA7xBabPhI0Vwj&t=14016  Homer Alexander, Morro Bay, urged the Council to approve the amendment and hoped staff would pursue grant funding for decommissioning of the old wastewater treatment plant.
 Betty Winholtz, Morro Bay, agreed with previous speaker and questioned the continued need for Carollo's services.
 Barry Branin, Morro Bay, spoke in support of staff's
recommendation.

End of public comment.

Motion by Council Member Barton
Seconded by Mayor Wixom
Affirm Staff Authorization to execute an amendment to the SRF Construction Loan Agreement (Loan Amendment) with the State Water Resources Control Board for a needed extension of the Construction Completion Date and SRF loan repayment dates, as well as providing for additional budget for WTTP decommissioning and demolition. This Amendment is required to be executed by June 30, 2024, by the State Water Board.

Ayes (5): Mayor Wixom, Council Member Landrum, Council Member Barton, Council Member Edwards, Council Member Ford

10 CARRIED (5 to 0)

10. COUNCIL DECLARATION OF FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
https://youtu.be/QM6GbliQEQY?si=lEsij7Qc64Tpt8QE&t=14615 Council Member Landrum asked that an emergency item be brought to the July meeting to support Friends of the Morro Bay Library's request for continued use of the book room. There was full Council support and comments regarding individual outreach out to County representatives.

11. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
/s/ Dana Swanson, City Clerk

AGENDA NO: 7.b.1
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF MORRO BAY RECOGNIZING
LATINO OUTREACH COUNCIL’S 30 YEARS OF SERVICE

CITY COUNCIL
City of Morro Bay, California
WHEREAS, the City of Morro Bay is welcoming, inclusive, and dedicated to improving the quality of life for those who live, work, and visit here; and WHEREAS, the Latino Outreach Council of San Luis Obispo County was established in 1994 and is dedicated to facilitating the equal and full participation of all members of the Latino community in the life and affairs of SLO County; and
WHEREAS, the Latino Outreach Council serves as a resource network, building bridges between resources and the Latino community by supporting and offering community programs and events to educate and raise cultural awareness and to enhance opportunities for the Latino/Hispanic community to fully participate in the affairs of the county; and WEREAS, the Latino Outreach Council supports the inclusion and empowerment of our Hispanic, Latino, and Latinx community by: hosting monthly educational town hall events, activities for children and special cultural learning activities; and facilitating statewide leadership and networking opportunities; and collaborating with private, nonprofit, and public entities to bring essential services to San Luis Obispo County; and
WHEREAS, the Latino Outreach Council is the leading organization in San Luis Obispo County that provides advocacy and outreach to the Latino population; and WHEREAS, Morro Bay is fortunate to count among its population a large number of residents of Spanish and Latin American descent, who grow businesses, offer innovative ideas, strengthen our economy, create jobs, and contribute to our daily lives.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Morro Bay City Council does hereby honor and celebrate 30 years of efforts of the Latino Outreach Council as well as the organization’s involvement in the community and its civic engagement projects and invites the community to learn more of the Hispanic culture, people, traditions and values that have positively enriched our community.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto
set my hand and caused the seal of the City
of Morro Bay to be affixed this 23rd day of
July 2024
______________________________
CARLA WIXOM, Mayor
City of Morro Bay, California

Prepared By: _YK _______ Dept Review: ______
City Manager Review: __ YK______ City Attorney Review: ______ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 18, 2023 FROM: Yvonne Kimball, City Manager
SUBJECT: Morro Bay Library Meeting/Book Room Discussion Update

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file this report.

ALTERNATIVES
None

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In June, members of the public and Friends of the Library approached the City Council regarding their concerns about a potential change to the work room at the Morro Bay Library. It is one of the 14 public libraries under the authority of the County Library Department. The City does not oversee any library operations nor directly operate the facility. The City owns the library property and leases it to the County of San Luis Obispo (“County”) for public library uses.

It was brought to the Council’s attention that the County Library Department had notified the Friends of the Morro Bay Library (“Friends”) that the work room in the Morro Bay Library would be converted into a storage room for books as a county-wide policy. The Friends expressed deep concerns about this potential change, emphasizing that volunteers frequently use the work room to prepare for book sales. The book sales have been crucial in raising large funds for library building needs. Turning the workroom into storage would have hindered their ability to support the library effectively. The Friends sought City Council’s assistance to facilitate a discussion with the County Library.

At the June 25th meeting, after receiving several public comments, Mayor Pro Tem Landrum requested Council hold a discussion on this matter, which was supported by all Council Members. In the following days and weeks, Mayor Wixom and other Council Members reached out the County Board of Supervisors. Mayor Wixom, particularly met with Supervisor Gibson to explore options.

These discussions were reportedly positive and productive. As of July 3, County library staff advised the Friends that an alternative solution had been found, eliminating the need to use the work room for storage.

With the Library workroom issue resolved to the community’s satisfaction, staff decided to remove AGENDA NO: 7.c
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

this item from the discussion calendar. We would like to thank the Mayor and City Council for their effective communication with the public and the County officials, which has led to a favorable outcome for the community. We have also expressed our appreciation to the County Library and the County Board of supervisors for their cooperation and assistance.

ATTACHMENT
None

Prepared By: _YK _______ Dept Review: ______
City Manager Review: __ YK______ City Attorney Review: ______ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 18, 2023 FROM: Yvonne Kimball, City Manager
SUBJECT: Update Regarding Ironman Event Contract Termination

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive and file the report.

ALTERNATIVES
None

FISCAL IMPACT
Minimum.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On or about July 2, 2024, City staff encountered Ironman’s social media posts which indicated the indefinite discontinuation of the 2025 event in Morro Bay. Staff contacted Ironman immediately for an official statement. On July 3, we received an emailed letter from the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC), Ironman event operator, which officially notified the City of the decision to terminate the contract one year sooner.

In reviewing the cancelation latter, it suggested that WTC decision was driven by business considerations, not a reflection of City’s partnership. Our preliminary review suggests that WTC did not violate contract terms by early termination. We will invoice all eligible expenses incurred for the 2024 event.

In terms of background, the original event contract was entered into by three parties: the City of Morro Bay, Visit Morro Bay, and the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC). The contract stipulated that the City had the exclusive right to host the Ironman event in 2023, 2024 and 2025. To date, the City successfully hosted the 2023 and the 2024 events. Since the completion of the 2024 event, City has been actively working with the Ironman team to prepare for the 2025 event and collaborate on ways to continued improvement. Many athletes, visitors, and community members provided positive feedback and indicated that they were looking forward to the return of the 2025 Ironman event.

Not only were we surprised by the WTC’s decision to cancel, we were disappointed in how WTC communicated their cancelation decision with us. Undoubtedly, the City fulfilled our obligations as a hosting agency. In reflection, we also recognize that hosting the ironman events has been a major task for the community. We would like to extend our gratitude to the entire community for having AGENDA NO: 7.d.

MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

supported the City to host Ironman events.

In the last two years, our city has invested considerable resources to ensure the success of this event for both athletes and spectators. The City’s public safety departments deployed extensive local resources to ensure safety of the events. Our City leadership team facilitated numerous crucial conversations for WTC and other stakeholders to ensure a smooth event operation. Additionally, City Council Members and City employees volunteered their time to support the events. Our community has learned to embrace this international brand of events. We are proud of the hard work, and warm hospitality demonstrated by our City officials and our community in supporting Ironman events and the athletes.

Although we won’t be hosting the 2025 Ironman event, the City remains committed to our partnership with Visit Morro Bay in hosting other signature events that bring our community together and showcase the best our city has to offer.

ATTACHMENT

1. WTC termination letter

3407 W. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. ⦁ Suite 100 ⦁ Tampa, FL 33607 July 1, 2024

CITY OF MORRO BAY
595 Harbor Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Attn: City Clerk
E-mail: [email protected]

VISIT MORRO BAY
695 Harbor Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442
Attn: Michael Wambolt
E-mail: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Re: Notice of Termination Following the 2024 Event
Dear City Clerk and Mr. Wambolt:

This letter is in reference to that certain HOST VENUE AGREEMENT1 regarding the IRONMAN® 70.3® MORRO BAY triathlon event.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 13(b)(i)(B) of the Agreement and the discussions held between WTC and the City of Morro Bay and Visit Morro Bay on or around July 1, 2024, WTC is exercising its right to terminate the Agreement.

WTC sincerely appreciates the support given by the community for the IRONMAN® 70.3® MORRO BAY event and truly values the partnership we’ve developed with the City of Morro Bay and Visit Morro Bay over the past 3 years. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very respectfully,
Keats McGonigal
Managing Director, North America
cc: Nicolus Paskiewicz ([email protected]) Tim Brosious ([email protected])
Jessica Merrick ([email protected])
1 HOST VENUE AGREEMENT, dated September 28, 2022, between WORLD TRIATHLON CORPORATION (“WTC”), and CITY OF MORRO BAY (“City”) and VISIT MORRO BAY (“VMB” and together with City, “Host”) (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

Prepared By: _YK _______ Dept Review: ______
City Manager Review: __ YK______ City Attorney Review: ______ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 18, 2024 FROM: Yvonne Kimball, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization to Join the League of California Cities Letter of Opposition to Assembly Bill 2560 (Alvarez)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Join the League of California Cities (“Cal Cities”) in opposition of Assembly Bill 2560 (Alvarez).

ALTERNATIVES
None

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Assembly Bill 2560 (AB 2560) is authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez (D-San Diego). This legislation would eliminate the exemption of the Coastal Zone from the state's Housing Density Bonus Law. AB 2560 with amendments has proceeded through the hearings at both assembly and the senate. It eventually is being considered by the Governor to sign it into law.

AB 2560 would allow the California Coastal Commission to regain housing authority and require all cities and counties to amend their local coastal programs to harmonize Density Bonus Laws (DBL) with the California Coastal Act (Act) by July 1, 2026. Cal Cities is strongly opposed to this measure and invites all 61 coastal cities to join the opposition position.

At a local level, Mayor Pro Tem Landrum brought AB 2560 to the Council’s attention in April and indicated her opposition. Since then, staff has been working with City’s lobbyist and the Cal Cities staff to monitor this bill. Recently both Lobbyist Townsend Public Affairs and Cal Cities issued briefs and position letters. Based on a briefing provided by Townsend Public Affairs a few weeks ago, the author of the bill also dislikes the amendments. As of end of June, the cities of Long Beach and San Diego support AB 2560, while at least a dozen of other coastal cities oppose. The League of California Cities opposes this bill. Should the Council decide to join Cal Cities in opposition of AB 2560, staff will submit our City logo to be included in League’s opposition letter.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. League of California Cities Action Alert (AB 2560)

2. League of California Cities Sign-on Letter

3. Briefing and Analysis from City’s State Lobbyist Townsend Public Affairs AGENDA NO: 7.e.

MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

ACTION ALERT
AB 2560 (Alvarez)
Density Bonus Law:

California Coastal Commission Act of 1976
OPPOSE
ACTION
AB 2560 would allow the Coastal Commission to regain housing authority and require all cities and counties to amend their local coastal programs (LCPs) to harmonize Density Bonus Law with the Coastal Act by July 1, 2026. Cal Cities is strongly opposed to this measure.

Cal Cities is organizing a CITY COALITION SIGN-ON LETTER to unite all 61 coastal cities in strong opposition to this measure.

Contact Cal Cities at [email protected] by July 17 to have your city included in the coalition letter, sample attached.

Background: Density Bonus Law requires local governments to provide bonuses, concessions, waivers, reductions, or incentives to affordable housing projects if there is a minimum number of affordable units proposed in the project. Current law identifies that Density Bonus Law should be harmonized with the California Coastal Act provisions, such as protecting coastal resources, public access, parking, and viewshed. This bill was originally intended to clarify that Density Bonus Law applies to developments within the coastal zone.

As amended, AB 2560 would remove existing law that says LCPs are not required to have housing policy and programs, allowing the Coastal Commission to regain housing authority. Further, the bill would require all cities and counties to amend their LCPs to harmonize Density Bonus Law with the Coastal Act within a year and a half.

What would AB 2560 specifically do and why is it problematic for cities? AB 2560 would place two state agencies at the helm of regulating housing policy in the coastal zone. The California Coastal Commission (Commission) and the Department of Housing Community Development (HCD) would both be authorized to oversee and enforce housing planning and policies for coastal cities. Cities would be required to include housing information in the housing elements reviewed by HCD and housing policies in LCPs certified by the Commission.

• AB 2560 will give the Coastal Commission housing authority by removing the provision the LCPs shall not include housing policies and programs. • The Coastal Commission was stripped of its housing authority within the first five years of the Coastal Act being codified in 1976. Restoring these authorities will thrust inherent conflict into housing planning and significantly slow and delay cities from meeting their housing goals and building more affordable housing along the coast.
• Cities will have to include housing information in the housing elements reviewed by HCD and housing policies in LCPs certified by the Commission.
• This will mire cities down in planning efforts and prevent them from achieving housing goals, by having dueling direction from two state agencies for how to plan and develop housing along the coast. • All coastal cities will need to update their LCPs – an unfunded state mandate – in a year and a half. This is an unreasonable and costly request with an infeasible timeline for both locals and the state to have to review and certify all LCPs at the same time.
• LCP amendments cost millions of dollars to local governments, and this bill provides no new funding to comply with the proposed law. • The bill will set an even higher bar that cities will need to prove that Density Bonus Law does not result in significant adverse impacts versus simply harmonizing Density Bonus Law with the Coastal Act. • This will give the Commission greater discretion to deny Density Bonus Law projects in the coast.
• This bill makes it more challenging for cities to regain local control on the coast.

[NASCAR SIGN-ON LETTER – INSERT LOGOS HERE]
July XX, 2024
The Honorable Anna Caballero
Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee
California State Capitol, Room 412
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2560 (Alvarez) Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976.

Notice of OPPOSITION (As Amended July 1, 2024)
Dear Senator Caballero,
On behalf of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) and the following cities, we respectfully submit our oppose position on AB 2560 (Alvarez), as amended on July 1, 2024. The committee amendments at the June 24, 2024 Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee (SNRW) present a significant shift in housing oversight and state authority and are extremely problematic for local governments. While we recognize the amendments were not author amendments and were provided by the committee, we now strongly oppose the bill. As amended, the bill will make it extremely challenging to develop affordable housing on the coast – counter to the author’s clear intention of the bill.

As introduced, AB 2560 would clarify that Density Bonus Law applies to developments within the coastal zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act. Density Bonus Law requires local governments to provide bonuses, concessions, waivers, reductions, or incentives to affordable housing projects if there is a minimum number of affordable units proposed in the project. As amended, the bill will present an extremely challenging reality that will mire local governments in planning approvals, preventing the actual development of affordable housing in the coastal zone:
1) Two different state regulators will take the helm enforcing housing policies for coastal communities.

Local governments are required to develop housing elements and seek compliance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In the coastal zone, local coastal programs (LCPs) are required to include specific and limited land use and zoning information, and cities and counties must gain certification from the California Coastal Commission (Commission) under the California Coastal Act (Act). The Commission was stripped of its housing authority just five years after the Act was codified in statute. As amended, the bill would reinstate housing authority for the Commission and thrust two very different state regulatory agencies – HCD and the Commission – would be in a position to require specific

housing policy and program information and outcomes of cities and counties, independent of one another. This would open the floodgates for duplicative planning efforts, dueling regulatory oversight, doubling down on locals with housing requirements, and most importantly – stalling the actual development of affordable housing in the coastal zone. This change is fraught with potential litigation and without any statutory direction, opens the door for the Commission to demand significantly more housing policy and program information in local-developed LCPs, further hamstringing local governments to meet their housing goals. 2) A more stringent standard than existing law will be needed to implement Density Bonus Law in the coast.

After a recent court decision1, the California Legislature codified into statute2that coastal protection requirements under the Act be harmonized with Density Bonus Law. This was intended to support local governments in achieving their goals of increasing affordable housing in the coastal zone while also protecting coastal resources and coastal access. While ‘harmonization’ is currently undefined in law, as amended, AB 2560 would now impose a new standard of needing to provide that Density Bonus Law is implemented in a way that does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources. This sets a different standard than codified and defended in the courts. This would also allow the Commission to enforce that to that standard. With the exemptions already included subdivision (m) of the bill, significant adverse impacts would not be anticipated to the coastal resources and environmentally sensitive areas in the coast. This would only allow for the Commission to require greater justification and analysis in the LCP when applying Density Bonus Law and would include a more stringent review of coastal development permits for projects using Density Bonus Law. This will make it harder for cities and counties to use Density Bonus Law to meet their currently mandated housing goals in the coast.
3) Unfunded and mandated LCP amendments and certification will delay affordable coastal housing development.

By requiring all 61 cities and 18 counties to update their LCPs by July 1, 2026 is an unfunded mandate that will inundate the Commission and delay the certification of LCPs to move forward with affordable housing projects that incorporate Density Bonus Law. LCP amendments are costly and time-consuming. Each amendment can range anywhere from several hundred thousand dollars to over a million dollars of local government staff time, local resources, and support. Local governments can and have already incorporated Density Bonus Law into their LCPs, without any change to existing law; therefore, mandating that all local governments do so will only add time delays and financial burdens on local governments without actually increasing affordable housing.

1 Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 927 2 Assembly Bill 2797 (Chapter 904, Statutes of 2018)

For these reasons, we oppose AB 2560 (Alvarez). If you have any questions, please contact Cal Cities Legislative Affairs Lobbyist Melissa Sparks-Kranz at [email protected].

CC: The Honorable David Alvarez
Member, Senate Appropriations Committee
Mark McKenzie, Staff Director, Senate Appropriations Committee Kerry Yoshida, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus

From: Eric O"Donnell
To: Yvonne Kimball
Cc: Greg Kwolek
Subject: AB 2560 (Alvarez) Density Bonus Law Amendments Date: Thursday, June 27, 2024 8:40:26 AM
Attachments: 202320240AB2560_Senate Natural Resources And Water.pdf CAUTION: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.

Hi Yvonne,
AB 2560 (Alvarez), which would have exempted Density Bonus Law (DBL) from the Coastal Act and therefore would have established HCD as the superseding authority for DBL regulation, was substantially amended in the Senate Natural Resources Committee yesterday. In talking with the Author’s office after the hearing, it is apparent that these amendments are not aligned with his vision of the bill and are largely reflective of differing attitudes about the Coastal Commission’s authority over coastal land use decisions. The Committee forced these amendments on Asm. Alvarez, and at this point, he is not interested in moving the bill forward anymore.

The amendments (also included within the attached analysis) amend the bill in the following ways:

The bill now requires the local coastal program (LCP) process to be “harmonized” with DBL. The amendments set a July 1, 2026 deadline for all cities within the coastal zone to submit an amendment to their LCP certification that it is comprehensively updated to incorporate the applicable provisions of density bonus law. I imagine that this timeline will be hard to meet – specifically without state subsidized funding.

The amendments also strike the following section of code that has been enshrined within Coastal Act law since the 1980s:
30500.1. No local coastal program shall be required to include housing policies and programs.

The impacts of this code strike can be far reaching. The intent of this language was to restrict the Coastal Commission’s authority to require housing policies and conditions to be included in the LCP process. Without this protection, they could have additional authority to implement a number of housing conditions outside of the DBL scope, which could include requiring new housing projects to have additional inclusionary zoning percentages beyond what the local jurisdiction has already prescribed.

Let me know your thoughts and if City staff have additional insight to share. We will be circling in with Cal Cities and other stakeholders as well to determine the local strategy for this measure. I think CalCities and some others are going to be suggesting an oppose position, so that is an option for us if we want. However, as I mentioned, the Author also dislikes these amendments and will not move it forward as-is.

Thank you!
Eric O’Donnell
Director
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
1401 Dove Street Ste. 330 Newport Beach, CA 92660
o: 949-399-9050 c:714-366-3886
[email protected]
www.TownsendPA.com

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Dave Min, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: AB 2560 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024
Author: Alvarez
Version: April 24, 2024 Amended
Urgency: No Fiscal: No
Consultant: Katharine Moore
Subject: Density Bonus Law: California Coastal Act of 1976

SUMMARY
This bill would exempt certain developments utilizing Density Bonus Law in the coastal zone from being subject to the Coastal Act, as specified.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Californians value the coast. In an August 2019 survey, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reported that 77% of Californians agreed that the “condition of the ocean and beaches is very important to California’s future economy and quality of life.” A subsequent PPIC survey asking the same question reported in July 2023 found that “nearly all” Californians agreed with the same statement.

The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) was established by voter initiative in 1972. The Legislature later made the Coastal Commission permanent through the adoption of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§30000 et seq.). The Coastal Commission plans for and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone (which excludes the San Francisco Bay).

The Coastal Commission is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency, and its mission statement states that it “is committed to protecting and enhancing California’s coast and ocean for present and future generations.” The Coastal Commission does so “through careful planning and regulation of environmentally sustainable development, rigorous use of science, strong public participation, education, and effective intergovernmental coordination.”
Development activities in the coastal zone generally require a coastal development permit (CDP) issued by the Coastal Commission or by a local government with a local coastal program (LCP) certified by the Coastal Commission. Coastal Act policies are the standards the Coastal Commission uses to determine the permissibility of proposed developments subject to its jurisdiction.

California is facing a severe housing crisis. Housing production has not kept pace with the state’s population growth. Home values and rents in California are among the highest in the nation and the state has one of the highest rates of homelessness.

Housing affordability is a major concern. In a sustained effort to increase the supply and affordability of housing, the Legislature has passed and the Governor signed into law multiple bills seeking to spur housing construction, including affordable housing (SB 423 (Wiener, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023), AB 2011 (Wicks, Chapter 647, Statutes of 2022), SB 9 (Atkins, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021), AB 1485 (Wicks, Chapter 663,

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 2 of 15
Statutes of 2019), AB 2162 (Chiu, Chapter 753, Statutes of 2018), SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), among others). High labor and construction costs, as well as the current (relatively) high interest rates that make project financing more expensive are among the factors adversely affecting new housing supply.

According to the Senate Housing Committee’s bill analysis, it is extremely difficult for the private market to provide housing units that are affordable to low- and even moderate-income households. Public subsidy is often required to fill the financial gap on affordable units. The state’s Density Bonus Law (DBL) allows public entities to reduce or even eliminate subsidies for a particular project by allowing a developer to include more total units in a project than would otherwise be allowed by the local zoning ordinance, in exchange for affordable units. Allowing more total units permits the developer to spread the cost of the affordable units more broadly over the market-rate units. The idea of DBL is to cover at least some of the financing gap of affordable housing with regulatory incentives, rather than additional subsidy.

Under existing law, if a developer proposes to construct a housing development with a specified percentage of affordable units, the city or county must provide all of the following benefits: a density bonus; incentives or concessions (hereafter referred to as incentives); waiver of any development standards that prevent the developer from utilizing the density bonus or incentives; and reduced parking standards. To qualify for benefits under DBL, a proposed housing development must contain a minimum percentage of affordable housing. If one of these options is met, a developer is entitled to a base increase in density for the project as a whole (referred to as a density bonus) and one regulatory incentive. Under DBL, a developer is entitled to a sliding scale of density bonuses, up to a maximum of 50% of the maximum zoning density and up to four incentives, as specified, depending on the percentage of affordable housing included in the project. At the low end, a developer receives 20% additional density for 5% very low-income units or 20% density for 10% low-income units. The maximum additional density permitted is 50%, in exchange for 15% very low-income units or 24% low-income units. Additionally, specified 100% affordable housing projects may receive up to an 80% density bonus. The developer also negotiates additional incentives, reduced parking, and design standard waivers, with the local government. This helps developers reduce costs while enabling a local government to determine what changes make the most sense for that site and community.

The state’s DBL is subject to the Coastal Act under existing law.

In 1977, the Coastal Act’s policy provisions included the protection of affordable housing. In implementing this policy, the Coastal Commission prohibited the demolition of low- and moderate-income housing for reasons other than health and safety. The Coastal Commission also included density bonuses and reduced parking requirements in their development guidelines to prioritize new affordable housing opportunities. The guidelines were revised in 1979 and 1981 to require in-lieu fees, land dedication, and housing credits in certain circumstances. In addition, the Coastal Commission required that specified percentages of proposed housing units be set aside for low- and moderate-income households. For the four years between 1977 and 1981, the Coastal Commission’s inclusionary housing program resulted in the approval of 5,000 affordable units. During that same time period, the Coastal Commission also prohibited the demolition of more than 1,100 existing affordable housing units, and collected

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 3 of 15
approximately $2 million in in-lieu fees for affordable housing. In 1981, SB 626 (Mello, Chapter 1007, Statutes of 1981) repealed the Coastal Commission’s authority to protect and provide affordable housing.

Existing law, pursuant to the Coastal Act:
1) Establishes the Coastal Commission in the California Natural Resources Agency. 2) Includes legislative findings and declarations that:
a) The coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people, the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents, and existing uses and future developments are carefully planned and developed consistent with the Coastal Act are essential to the economic and social well-of the people of the state (PRC §30001).
b) It is important for the Coastal Commission to encourage the protection of existing and the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone. (PRC §30604)
c) The basic goals of the state for the coastal zone include to:
i) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources, ii) Ensure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state, and
iii) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners, among other things (PRC §30001.5).
3) Provides for the planning and regulation of development within the coastal zone, as defined.
a) A person planning to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone is required to obtain a CDP from the Coastal Commission or local government enforcing a certified LCP (PRC §30600).
i) Development means, among other things, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure on land or in water. Structure means building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, and electrical power transmission and distribution lines, among other things (PRC §30106).
ii) The coastal zone means the coastal land and waters of California, and includes the lands that extend inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line, as specified, with various exceptions, including the San Francisco Bay (PRC §30103).

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 4 of 15
4) Requires a local government in the coastal zone to prepare a LCP. Requires the precise content of the LCP to be determined by the local government in full consultation with the Coastal Commission and with full public participation. (PRC §30500). Provides for LCPs to be amended by the local government, but the amendment does not take effect until certified by the Coastal Commission (PRC §30514).
5) Prohibits the Coastal Commission from exercising its review authority over any new development within the area to which the certified LCP, or any portion thereof, applies (PRC §30519).
6) Authorizes the appeal to the Coastal Commission of only certain developments approved by a local government with a certified LCP. (PRC §30603). 7) Requires that the standard of review used by the Coastal Commission for the appeal of certain local jurisdiction-issued CDPs is the applicable certified LCP or public access policies, as provided (PRC §30603).
8) Prohibits requiring a LCP from including housing policies and programs. (PRC §30500.1)
9) Requires the Coastal Commission to encourage housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. Does not authorize the Coastal Commission or a local jurisdiction to reduce residential densities below those sought by an applicant if the density sought is within the permitted density established by local zoning and the additional density permitted under DBL, as provided, unless there is a finding based on substantial evidence that the density cannot feasibly be accommodated in conformity with Coastal Act policies or the certified LCP. (PRC §30604) Existing law further:
1) Requires each city and county to adopt an ordinance that specifies how it will implement state DBL. Requires cities and counties to grant a density bonus when an applicant for a housing development --- defined as “five or more units” --- seeks and agrees to construct a project that will contain at least one of the following:
a) 10% of the total units of a housing development for lower-income households; b) 5% of the total units of a housing development for very low-income households; c) A senior citizen housing development or mobile home park; d) 10% of the units in a common interest development (CID) for moderate-income households;
e) 10% of the total units for transitional foster youth, veterans, or persons experiencing homelessness;
f) 20% of the total units for lower-income students in a student housing development; or
g) 100% of the units of a housing development for lower-income households, except that 20% of units may be for moderate-income households. 2) Requires a city or county to allow an increase in density on a sliding scale from 20% to 80%, depending on the percentage of units affordable to low- and very lowincome households, over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 5 of 15
under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan.

Requires the increase in density on a sliding scale for moderate-income for-sale developments from 5% to 50% over the otherwise allowable residential density. 3) Provides that the DBL does not supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the Coastal Act, and requires that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under the DBL be permitted in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act.
4) Pursuant to SB 35 (Wiener, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017), allows for specified infill projects with specified percentages of units affordable to lower-income households to be developed in the Coastal Zone under the specified conditions.

PROPOSED LAW
This bill would exempt certain developments utilizing Density Bonus Law in the coastal zone from being subject to the Coastal Act, as specified.

Specifically, this bill would:
1) Delete the provision that states that nothing in DBL supersedes or in any way alters or lessens the application of the Coastal Act.
2) Provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, or waivers of development standards, and parking ratios to which an applicant is entitled under DBL are permitted, notwithstanding the Coastal Act, as long as the development is not located on a site in the coastal zone that is:
a) Between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea, or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tideline of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance;
b) On tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff;
c) In a sensitive coastal resource area;
d) Not subject to a certified LCP;
e) Vulnerable to five feet of sea level rise;
f) Not zoned for multifamily housing;
g) On or within a 100-foot radius of a wetland; or
h) On prime agricultural land.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, “The Coastal Zone is one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, rendering it unaffordable for the vast majority of Californians,

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 6 of 15
including service workers who make the coastal economy possible. The ballooning housing costs is a direct result of not building enough housing to meet the demand.” “As a state program that has proven successful in creating more market rate and affordable housing across the state, Density Bonus Law serves as an important tool to resolve the severe housing shortage in our coastal areas. Density Bonus Law only applies in areas already zoned residential and allows developers to build additional units above the zoned amount in exchange for a certain percentage of income-restricted units. This ensures areas already zoned for housing are building more units than they would have otherwise while also dedicating a portion of them for moderate, low, and very-low income earners. AB 2560 utilizes this important housing tool with additional exemptions for areas with sensitive natural or environmental resources to guarantee we balance the need to build more housing with protecting our coast as a valuable resource.”
Additional comments from supporters included that “years of delay” due to the Coastal Commission could offset potential cost-savings associated with use of the DBL, and that objective compliance standards are needed.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Natural Resources Defense Council writes that “the California Coastal Act protects public access to our iconic and public coastline. […] The Coastal Commission plays a critical role in evaluating projects in its jurisdiction and balancing economic development, housing needs, public access, natural resources protection, and the impacts of climate change happening along our coast.”
“AB 2560 would weaken the Coastal Act by exempting from its jurisdiction the application of the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and thus removing significant development activity authorized by the DBL from the purview of the California Coastal Commission. Among other impacts, for example, the legislation as currently drafted risks failure to appropriately consider important environmental harms related to sealevel rise and ecosystem preservation. This exemption is not only inconsistent with the Coastal Act, but unnecessary since existing law already requires consistency in the application of the Coastal Act and DBL.”
“A consistent harmonization process throughout the Coastal Zone […] that builds on lessons learned from successful harmonization efforts could reduce financing risks for affordable and mixed-income housing developers and minimize time burdens on the [Coastal] Commission and its staff.”
Santa Cruz County Supervisor Cummings notes that “The Coastal Act has not hindered DBL projects in the City of Santa Cruz, including the coastal zone, and the community will benefit from the low and very low income housing that will be produced as part of these projects. In fact, the Governor’s Department of Housing and Community Development designated Santa Cruz as a Pro Housing jurisdiction due to its high level of project approval.”
Supervisor Cummings continues that “adherence to Coastal Act policies enhances the sustainability and resilience of affordable housing projects by locating them in

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 7 of 15
developed areas with adequate infrastructure and ensuring appropriate environmental and climate mitigations.”

COMMENTS
This bill is a double-referral. This bill was referred to both the Senate Housing Committee and this Committee. The Senate Housing Committee heard this bill on June 18, 2024 where it passed on an 8 – 1 (1 DNV) vote. Elements of the bill under the Senate Housing Committee’s jurisdiction were discussed before that Committee, and are included here for completeness and context only.

Exemption from the Coastal Act. This bill would provide an exemption from the Coastal Act for DBL developments meeting certain criteria. This approach dismisses entirely the important role that the Coastal Commission plays, while guided by its Chapter 3 policies, in ensuring the “orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state,” and maximizing public access to and public recreational opportunities in coastal areas. The criteria proposed do not ensure public access will be maintained or public recreational opportunities afforded in the locations affected. Many Coastal Act Chapter 3 policies could be readily violated despite the criteria. Implicit in the criteria proposed is that a “one size fits all” approach can be instituted in statute applicable to the entire coast line despite the significant variability in coastal resources across the state.

In fact, there is an existing procedure to take local variability into consideration when addressing development in the coastal zone – the LCP. The development of a jurisdiction’s LCP provides the opportunity for a local jurisdiction and the Coastal Commission to assess on as fine a scale as needed how to provide for needed development while also balancing the multiple priorities that the state’s voters endorsed with passage of the Coastal Act in 1972.

Some local jurisdictions – for example, the City of Long Beach and the City of Santa Cruz, have already amended their LCPs to incorporate DBL successfully. These local jurisdictions illustrate that it is possible to harmonize the Coastal Act with DBL as required. It is important to note that when a LCP amendment has been certified by the Coastal Commission, any appeal to the Coastal Commission of a local approval uses the certified LCP as the standard of review. That helps to provide certainty. In addition, the updated LCP can include objective standards that vary between locations within the jurisdiction.

Further, providing additional exemptions from the Coastal Act in the coastal zone sets the stage for additional exemptions in future years for other important state goals in addition to affordable housing. It is important to note that current law specifically prohibits the Coastal Commission from addressing housing in LCPs (as noted above).

In view of this, the Committee may wish to amend the bill as follows:
 Replace the proposed Coastal Act exemption and instead require a DBL development in the coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit, and to be permitted in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act policies. [Amendment #1]

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 8 of 15
 Remove the Coastal Act prohibition on LCPs incorporating housing and require local governments to amend their LCPs to harmonize their LCPs with DBL and seek Coastal Commission certification of this amendment by July 1, 2026. Require the Coastal Commission to certify certain LCP amendments to harmonize DBL with the Coastal Act by its de minimis process, as specified. [Amendment #2] These Committee amendments require local jurisdictions to update their LCPs incorporating DBL to help facilitate the approval of future developments utilizing DBL in the coastal zone, and reinstate Coastal Act jurisdiction over DBL. They also seek to ensure that the Coastal Act addresses housing, and DBL development does not get delayed because a local jurisdiction has not updated its LCP.

Affordable housing and lower cost visitor-serving accommodations in the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission supported AB 500 (Ward, 2021) which would have provided the Coastal Commission with jurisdiction over affordable housing in the coastal zone.

Although the Coastal Commission’s ability to implement affordable housing policies was removed in 1981, its ability to protect and provide lower cost visitor-serving accommodations was retained. Over the years, the Coastal Commission, while ensuring coastal development permits have conformed with the Coastal Act’s lower cost accommodation policies, has denied some coastal development permits that would have eliminated existing lower cost accommodations, and has, in other instances, required lower cost accommodation to be constructed in conjunction with new higher cost hotels.

In addition, through 2021 the Coastal Commission has collected over $24 million in inlieu fees to mitigate for impacts to lower cost accommodations, and more than $10 million of those fees have been used to provide lower cost accommodations along the state’s coast. The Coastal Commission has collaborated with State Parks, the State Coastal Conservancy, regional agencies, local governments and non-profits on projects funded by the in-lieu fees. These projects include support for the Santa Monica Hostel, the restoration of the Crystal Cove Cottages in Orange County, and nearly 200 new campsites in State Parks. The Coastal Commission has undertaken an effort to document all past in-lieu fee requirements, and millions of dollars of these fees remain unspent.

RHNA compliance in the coastal zone. Data obtained from the Department of Housing and Community Development’s online portal regarding Housing Element compliance shows that 72% of local jurisdictions in the coastal zone are in compliance.

This compares well with statewide compliance which is 66%.1 Recent Circulate San Diego report. On June 14, 2024, one of the sponsors of this bill released a report titled “A Better Coastal Commission.” The report argues that “the Coastal Commission has resisted, opposed, and delayed the construction of deedrestricted affordable homes that use programs like Density Bonus Law.” The report

1 Data obtained on June 17, 2024. Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element Review and Compliance Report.

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 9 of 15
provides five examples of DBL projects that, in the author’s opinion, have been unreasonably delayed, among other charges.

In response, the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission released the following statement:

Circulate San Diego’s recent report significantly misrepresents the [Coastal Commission’s] track record on affordable housing. The agency has always been and continues to be deeply committed to equity, environmental justice and affordable housing in the coastal zone.” “Without background or context, the report fails to provide credible evidence to support its conclusions. It cherry picks a handful of cases that omit significant facts to paint a dishonest picture that the Commission denies density bonus projects or doesn’t support affordable housing. The reality is very different. A wealth of data shows that density bonus projects are regularly approved in the coastal zone every year, and the Commission has been a bold leader in environmental justice.” “The Coastal Commission has and will continue to proactively work with local governments, developers and community groups to find opportunities to increase the availability of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone, protect coastal resources, and ensure that the beach is accessible to all Californians. There priorities are not mutually exclusive.” The Coastal Commission notes in its rebuttal that of the five DBL projects cited in the report, four were approved and one is pending on appeal. The Coastal Commission cites disruption in state government activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including staff turnover, and a failure by the project proponent to engage in tribal consultation, among other reasons for delays associated with appeals. The Coastal Commission also provided over 15 examples of DBL projects in the coastal zone that it approved.

Recent litigation and legislation affecting DBL in the coastal zone. According to the Senate Housing Committee, City of Los Angeles planning officials in 2013 approved a proposed residential development in the Venice area. The project would have involved tearing down a two-story, three-unit apartment building and replacing it with a 15-unit housing development including five duplexes and five single-family homes.

Pursuant to DBL, the developer was allowed to exceed the normal density restrictions for that location because two of the units would have been designated for very lowincome households. DBL also entitled the developer to other zoning concessions, including a height variance. The City approved the project’s vesting tentative tract map, including findings that the project complied with the City’s General Plan as well as the Venice Specific Plan, and also approved a CDP under the Act.

In September 2013, a neighborhood group appealed the planning department’s development approvals, including the CDP: Kalnel Gardens, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (3 Cal.App.5th 927 (2016)). The residents argued the project violated the Coastal Act because its height, density, setbacks, and other visual and physical characteristics were inconsistent with the existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission found that the development did not conform to the Coastal Act because its size, height, bulk, mass, and scale were incompatible with and harmful to the surrounding neighborhood and

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 10 of 15
because the setbacks were too small. The developer appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, which denied the appeal.

The developer then brought an administrative mandate action against the City, alleging that it had violated DBL (among others). The trial court found that the density bonus, height and setback variations initially approved for the project were proper under the housing density statutes and other City zoning plans and regulations, including the Commission-approved Venice Land Use Plan. However, the trial court found that the housing density statutes were subordinate to the Coastal Act and that substantial evidence supported the Planning Commission’s findings that the project violated the Coastal Act because it was visually out of step with the surrounding coastal community.

The developer appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that state DBL is subordinate to the Coastal Act and that a project that violates the Coastal Act as the result of a density bonus may be denied on that basis. The court noted that “the Legislature appears to have struck a balance” between the Coastal Act and DBL “by requiring local agencies to grant density bonuses unless doing so would violate the [Coastal Act].” (emphasis added)
In 2018, AB 2797 (Bloom, Chapter 904), further clarified the law in response to Kalnel Gardens, LLC to provide that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under density bonus law shall be accommodated, but in a manner that harmonizes DBL and the portions of the Coastal Act relating to Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies.

Related legislation
SB 1092 (Blakespear, 2024) would provide for a study providing appeals data for multifamily housing in the coastal zone, as provided. (This bill is pending before the Assembly Local Government Committee.)
SB 1077 (Blakespear, 2024) would provide a CDP exemption from the Coastal Act for accessory dwelling units, as provided, among other things. (This bill is pending before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.) SB 951 (Wiener, 2024) would modify existing rezoning standards to add the requirement that jurisdictions within the coastal zone identify any necessary local coastal program updates, among other provisions. (This bill is pending before the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.)
SB 689 (Blakespear, 2023) would provide that an application by a local government to convert an existing motorized vehicle travel lane into a dedicated bicycle lane shall not require a traffic study for a CDP or an update to a LCP. This bill also requires that any amendment to a LCP to develop such a lane will be processed with a minimal review. (This bill is before the Assembly Transportation Committee.) SB 704 (Min, Chapter 292, Statutes of 2023) authorizes the Coastal Commission to seek scientific advice on offshore wind, revises the coastal-dependent industrial use policies in the Coastal Act to bar new or expanded oil and gas development and new or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities from being considered a coastalPage 57 of 85 AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 11 of 15
dependent industrial use, and authorizes their permitting if all applicable Coastal Act provisions are complied with, among other things.

SB 272 (Laird, Chapter 384, Statutes of 2023) requires a local government in the coastal zone or within the San Francisco Bay to develop a sea level rise plan as part of either a LCP or a shoreline resiliency plan that includes certain information, including sea level rise adaptation strategies and recommended projects, requires local governments to comply by January 1, 2034, as specified, and prioritizes funding for implementation of sea level rise adaptation strategies in approved plans, among other things.

AB 1287 (Alvarez, Chapter 755, Statutes of 2023) requires a city, county, or city and county to grant additional density and concessions and incentives if an applicant agrees to include additional low or moderate income units on top of the maximum amount of units for lower-, very low-, or moderate-income units.

SB 867 (Laird, 2022) would have required a local government in the coastal zone or within the San Francisco Bay to develop a sea level rise plan as part of either a LCP or a shoreline resiliency plan that includes certain information, including sea level rise adaptation strategies and recommended projects, among other things. (This bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom.)
AB 2593 (Boerner, 2022) would have authorized the Coastal Commission to approve blue carbon projects, as defined. (This bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.)
AB 500 (Ward, 2021) would have reinstated the Coastal Commission’s affordable housing policies and provided for streamlined permitting for accessory dwelling units by the Coastal Commission, among other things. (This bill died on the inactive file on the Senate floor.)
AB 2797 (Bloom, Chapter 904, Statutes of 2019) requires that density bonus or similar be permitted in a manner that is consistent with DBL and the Coastal Act, as provided.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
Replace GOV 65915 (m) with the following:

In the coastal zone, this section does not relieve a project relying on the provisions of this section from the requirement to obtain a coastal development permit as required by Section 30600 of the Public Resources Code. Any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with this section and does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access pursuant to Chapter 3 of Division 20 (commencing with Section 30200) of the Public Resources Code.

AMENDMENT 2
Add and amend Public Resources Code 30500.1 to read:

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 12 of 15
30500.1. No local coastal program shall be required to include housing policies and programs.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that this division and state density bonus law (Government Code section 65915) be harmonized so as to achieve the goal of increasing the supply of housing in the coastal zone while also protecting coastal resources and public coastal access.
(b) On or by July 1, 2026, any local government in the coastal zone that has not done so already shall submit to the commission for certification an amendment to the local government’s local coastal program that harmonizes the applicable provisions of the density bonus law and this division pursuant to subdivision (m) of Government Code section 65915.
(c) If a local government submits to the commission for certification an amendment to the local government’s local coastal program that would add a provision stating that any density bonus, concessions, incentives, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios to which the applicant is entitled under this section shall be permitted in a manner that is consistent with the policies of the local coastal program to the greatest extent feasible and does not result in significant adverse impacts to coastal resources and public coastal access, and would make no other changes to the local coastal program, the amendment shall be processed as de minimis pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 30514.

SUPPORT
Circulate San Diego (sponsor)
SPUR (sponsor)
AARP
Abundant Housing LA
American Planning Association, California Chapter
Associated General Contractors
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Community Builders
California Housing Partnership
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
California School Employees Association
California YIMBY
City of Long Beach
City of San Diego
CivicWell
Construction Employers’ Association
East Bay YIMBY
East Bay for Everyone
Eden Housing
Greenbelt Alliance
Grow the Richmond
Housing Action Coalition
Housing California

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 13 of 15
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
How to ADU
Inner City Law Center
LeadingAge California
Monterey Bay Economic Partnership
Mountain View YIMBY
Napa-Solano for Everyone
Northern Neighbors
Peninsula for Everyone
People for Housing Orange County
Progress Noe Valley
Public Interest Law Project
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco YIMBY
Santa Cruz YIMBY
Santa Rosa YIMBY
SLOCo YIMBY
South Bay YIMBY
South Side Forward
Streets For All
Streets for People
Urban Environmentalists
Ventura County YIMBY
Western Center on Law & Poverty
YIMBY Action
YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County

OPPOSITION
Albany Neighbors United
Azul (unless amended)
Ballona Wetlands Institute (unless amended)
California Cities for Local Control
California Coastal Commission
California Coastal Protection Network (unless amended)
California Coastkeeper Alliance (unless amended)
California Contract Cities Association
California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance, Inc. (unless amended) California Environmental Voters (unless amended)
California River Watch (unless amended)
California Native Plant Society (unless amended)
Canyon Back Alliance (unless amended)
Center for Biological Diversity (unless amended)
Chiatri de Laguna Farm (unless amended)
Citizens Preserving Venice
City of Carlsbad
City of Coronado
City of Del Mar
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Newport Beach

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 14 of 15
City of Oceanside
City of Port Hueneme
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
City of Redondo Beach
City of Solana Beach
City of Torrance
CleanEarth4Kids.org (unless amended)
Coalition for a Beautiful Los Angeles
Coastal Lands Action Network (unless amended)
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Defend Ballona Wetlands (unless amended)
Defenders of Wildlife (unless amended)
East Area Progressive Democrats
Endangered Habitats League (unless amended)
Environment California (unless amended)
Environmental Action Committee of West Marin (unless amended) Environmental Center of San Diego (unless amended)
Environmental Defense Center (unless amended)
Forest Unlimited (unless amended)
Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks (unless amended) Gaviota Coast Conservancy (unless amended)
Green Foothills (unless amended)
Humboldt Waterkeeper (unless amended)
Idle No More SoCal/Venice (unless amended)
Livable California
Livable Ventura (unless amended)
Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (unless amended)
Mission Street Neighbors
Natural Resources Defense Council (unless amended)
North Coast Rivers Alliance (unless amended)
Orange County Coastkeeper (unless amended)
Our City SF (unless amended)
Pacific Palisades Community Council
Planning and Conservation League (unless amended)
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Chapter (unless amended) Protect Ballona Wetlands (unless amended)
Public Trust Alliance (unless amended)
Puvunga Wetlands Protectors (unless amended)
Resource Renewal Institute (unless amended)
River Otter Ecology Project (unless amended)
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (unless amended)
Save Lafayette
Save the Sonoma Coast (unless amended)
Sierra Club California (unless amended)
Smith River Alliance (unless amended)
SoCal 350 Climate Action (unless amended)
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Southern California Watershed Alliance (unless amended) Surfrider Foundation (unless amended)
The Climate Center (unless amended)

AB 2560 (Alvarez) Page 15 of 15
The Honorable Justin Cummings, Ph.D., Supervisor, County of Santa Cruz Watershed Alliance of Marin (unless amended)
West Sonoma County Alliance (unless amended)
-- END --

Prepared By: _HG_________ Prepared By:____DS_____ Dept Review: ________ Department Review: ____DS___ City Manager Review: __YK______ City Attorney Review: _________ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 17, 2024 FROM: Dana Swanson, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointment of James Costanzo to the Recreation and Parks Commission

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Appoint James Costanzo to the Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) to fill an unscheduled vacancy through January 31, 2026.

ALTERNATIVES
Direct staff to continue to recruit and re-advertise the vacant position.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On May 22, 2024, Ray Purcell notified staff he was resigning from Recreation and Parks Commission effective immediately. Staff conducted a recruitment to fill the unscheduled vacancy from May 31 – June 28, 2024, providing public notices in City kiosks, the City’s website and social media sites.

As of the closing date of June 28, 2024, the City Clerk’s office received one application which was submitted by Mr. Costanzo (Attachment 1). Mr. Costanzo has been invited to attend the July 23rd Council meeting to respond to Council inquiries as needed.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council review Mr. Costanzo’s application and consider this appointment to fill the vacant Recreation and Parks Commission position for a term ending January 31, 2026.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. James Costanzo RPC Application

2. Link to Advisory Bodies Handbook & By-Laws
AGENDA NO: 7.f
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

Prepared By: AS_____ Dept Review: __AS__
City Manager Review: __YK___City Attorney Review: __CFN______ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 16, 2024 FROM: Airlin M. Singewald, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Downtown Design District Recommendations

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive an update on the Downtown Design District ad hoc subcommittee meeting summary and direct staff to proceed with recommendations outlined in the report; and affirm the satisfactory completion of the Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee assignment.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct staff to develop additional and/or revised recommendations.

2. Reject staff recommendations. Form a new ad hoc sub-committee on certain defined tasks.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendations in the attached memo are designed to minimize City costs by leveraging existing resources to the greatest extent possible. However, implementation of certain recommendations may require additional consultant and/or staff budget. If the Council authorizes the recommended actions, the Community Development Department (“Department”) will focus first on initiatives that can be accomplished with existing resources. If additional funds are needed, the Department will return to the Council with the necessary budget request.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this item is to present for City Council review the Downtown Design District subcommittee summary and recommendations, as outlined in the attached June 12, 2024 memo prepared by interim Community Development Director Michael Codron (Attachment 1). On February 14, 2023, the City Council formed an ad-hoc subcommittee, consisting of Councilmembers Landrum and Edwards, to address the design of the downtown, including building height, historic preservation, architectural design, community benefits, and other related matters. The ad-hoc subcommittee meetings were also attended by advisors, including Planning Commissioners Bill Roschen and Joseph Ingraffia, Jeff Eckles (CEO of the SLO Housing Trust Fund), Paul Boisclair (owner of the Siren), Betty Winholtz (resident) and Carrie Raya (owner of Buttercup Bakery). The Ad-hoc Subcommittee met eight times between October 2023 and May 2024. These meetings included a community forum and focused discussions with guest speakers regarding historic resources, form based codes, economic development, and housing.

AGENDA NO: 9.a
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

2 DISCUSSION
In his role as interim Community Development Director, Michael Codron attended the last three ad hoc subcommittee meetings. At the last meeting (May 1, 2024), Mr. Codron presented the subcommittee with five recommended next steps, corresponding to the key topic areas of housing, character defining buildings, view protection, process improvement, and economic development. Mr.

Codron’s recommendations follow an “incremental approach” by identifying actions the City can take within its existing (and recently updated) land use regulations, processes, and resources to address each topic area. This is an alternative to the expensive and time-consuming process of creating new land use regulations, such as development standards for the downtown area.

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
The work of the Downtown Design District subcommittee focused on some of the most critical land use issues facing Morro Bay, such as affordable housing, economic development, community benefits, and preservation of community character. The attached recommendations are not intended to close the dialogue on any of these topics. Rather, they lay out an initial roadmap of immediate actions the Department can take while continuing to engage with decision-makers, residents, and stakeholders on longer-term strategies.

It is recommended that the Council acknowledge the satisfactory completion of the assignments of the Downtown Design District ad hoc subcommittee. This will affirm the conclusion of the council ad hoc subcommittee. Given staff capacity, conclusion of the ad hoc subcommittee is highly recommended. However, this work of affordable housing, economic development, and preservation of community character will continue organically without a an ad hoc subcommittee. The council at a later date could form a separate ad hoc subcommittee to focus on one specific actionable item that is included in the recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS

1. June 12, 2024 Memo: Summary of DDD Subcommittee Meetings with Recommendations

2. Downtown Design District Area Map

City of Morro Bay
City Hall
955 Shasta Street
Morro Bay, CA 93442
To: Council Members Edwards and Landrum (DDD Ad Hoc Committee Members) From: Michael Codron, Interim Community Development Director Via: Yvonne Kimball, City Manager
Date: June 12, 2024
Subject: Summary of DDD Subcommittee Meetings with Recommendations Intro/Background
In November 2022, the City Council adopted a draft Zoning Ordinance that included an increase in downtown building height from 30 feet to 37 feet with the goal of increasing economic development and housing production downtown. However, following feedback from the Coastal Commission on a variety of issues, the Planning Commission reconsidered and forwarded a new recommendation to Council to keep building height limits downtown at 30 feet. The City Council agreed with the Planning Commission and the City’s new Zoning Regulations, which went into effect in March 2024 following Coastal Commission approval, maintains the 30-foot height limit for new buildings downtown.

Still, the discussion about increased building height continued because of community interest in some of the associated benefits of taller buildings. These benefits are thought to include increased economic activity and tax revenue for the City, increased opportunities for housing, and opportunities to enhance the overall aesthetic of downtown through quality architecture.

At the same time, increased building height comes with concerns. Some of those concerns have been expressed as the potential for a new development type (i.e. taller, mixed-use commercial buildings) to impact the character of downtown. There are also concerns about the cost of new, market-rate housing, which is unlikely to be affordable to the City’s workforce.

To address these issues and concerns and chart a path forward, the City Council appointed Councilmembers Edwards and Landrum to an ad-hoc, Downtown Design District (DDD) subcommittee to study the situation. This memo is intended to summarize the work of the subcommittee and recommend next steps. A map of the downtown area is enclosed.

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 2 Council Subcommittee Appointed
On February 14, 2023, the City Council voted unanimously to create the Ad-Hoc DDD Subcommittee, on the following motion.

MOTION: Council Member Edwards moved to form a downtown design district ad hoc group to address the design or details of the downtown to include height, historic preservation, design, community benefits and other related matters, to include two business owners, couple members of the Chamber, couple members of the Planning Commission, City staff, and Council Members and incorporate the effort into the city goals process. The motion was seconded by Council Member Barton.

Council Member Landrum requested the ad hoc committee include residents. Mayor Wixom agreed. Following those comments, the motion carried 5-0 by roll call vote.

Members of the Council subcommittee, Planning Commission and City staff met during Summer 2023 to identify the additional public members for the subcommittee and create an overall framework for the effort. Then staff returned to the City Council on September 26, 2023, to provide an update, and shared a draft framework for the effort, as follows:
 Outcomes
o Development of DDD guidelines
o Creation of possible incentives that may include affordable housing, economic development and improved pedestrian experience  Meeting Structure & Schedule
o 6 main meetings
o Two public meetings
The DDD ad hoc committee is comprised of Council Members Landrum and Edwards.

Advisors to the ad hoc committee include Planning Commissioners Bill Roschen and Joseph Ingraffia, Jeff Eckles (CEO of the SLO Housing Trust Fund), Paul Boisclair (owner of the Siren), Betty Winholtz (Resident) and Carrie Raya (owner Buttercup Bakery). In this memo, the full group is referred to as the subcommittee.

Public Engagement and Subcommittee Meetings
Full subcommittee meetings occurred on the following dates:
 10/18/2023: Introductory/Organizational Meeting
 11/2/2023: Downtown Community Forum
 11/8/2023: Historical Resources (Guest Speaker, Glenn Silloway)  12/20/2023: Form Based Codes (Guest Speakers, Ken Bernstein and Nore Winter)
 1/18/2023: Economic Development

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 3  2/21/2024: Housing (Guest Speaker: Scott Collins)
 3/20/2024: Implementation Opportunities
 5/1/2024: Overview of Issues and Next Steps
The topics for each meeting highlight the issues covered by the subcommittee and guest speakers. Overall, the work of the subcommittee identified the major issues and complexity underlying the downtown height discussion. Feedback received from the Community Forum also informed the work of the subcommittee (see Figure 1). The meeting series concluded on May 1st with an overview of the work performed. The agenda included a topic summary of the issues previously discussed by the subcommittee, as follows:

1. Housing
i. Define Appropriate Types
ii. Encourage Smaller Less Expensive Units
iii. Incentives (parking reductions, height, streamlining, fees)

2. Character Defining Buildings
i. Identify and Promote Compatible Projects
ii. Identify Features and Nodes within District Boundary to Enhance

3. View Protection
i. Identify the Visual Resources
ii. Identify and Protect Key Viewing Areas
iii. Ensure Upper Levels of Buildings are Set Back to Preserve Sense of Place

4. Process Improvements
i. Increase Certainty for Public, Developers and Property Owners ii. Utilize Design Guidelines or Form Based Codes

5. Traditional Economic Development
i. Provide Business Support
ii. Consider a Façade Improvement Program
iii. Identify Public Improvements to Support Business Success Each of the above 5 issue areas was discussed at some length by the subcommittee during its final two meetings. Since the subcommittee is not a decision-making body, this ad-hoc committee was utilized as a forum for informal feedback and information sharing with City Council Members Edwards and Landrum.

At the conclusion of the last meeting in May, staff prepared this report for CCMs Edward’s and Landrum’s use. Since this is a Council created subcommittee, the appointed Council Members should decide next steps, which may include a future presentation to the City Council to forward the recommendations in this report, or alternatives that the subcommittee would like to pursue.

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 4 Figure 1: Community Forum Input
Key Issues for Consideration
The original purpose of the subcommittee was to study building height options and to identify associated opportunities and challenges. The work of the subcommittee benefitted from community input and was able to clearly frame five areas of interest.

They are: housing, view protection, character defining buildings, city process improvements, and economic development. If Council, as part of the policy decision, would like to consider creating a DDD, the above five areas of interest and concern will need to be addressed to gain community consensus on desirable outcomes, which will in turn drive the standards of the new District.

The creation of a district could take many forms. For example, a DDD could be created through the approval of a new area plan, similar to the Downtown and Waterfront Strategic Plan, or new design guidelines specific to Downtown. New standards, such as increased height limits, would have to be approved through an update to the City’s Zoning Regulations. Similarly, form-based codes, which are an effective method of implementing zoning requirements, are normally adopted via ordinance. Other mechanisms discussed, such as using height as an incentive for desirable project features (e.g. preservation of a character defining building) also must be implemented via ordinance.

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 5 It should be noted that a formation of a new Downtown Design District is a comprehensive process and therefore, likely a very expensive project with a long timeframe for completion. Alternatively, implementation could occur through gradual modification of existing documents, such as via revisions to the Downtown and Waterfront Strategic Plan.

Incremental implementation would be another approach where the City pursues individual projects, such as a visual resource survey or a study of character defining buildings first. Then, the City can use the information gathered to inform next steps. In general, an incremental approach is recommended due to the cost and staff resources needed to create a comprehensive plan with new development standards for the Downtown Design District.

The following section is a more in-depth review of the five key issues discussed by the subcommittee.

Housing
The City Council’s goal for housing was the key driver of the Downtown Design District subcommittee’s discussions regarding building height in downtown. The subcommittee discussed using height as a “carrot” that could be allowed in exchange for certain project benefits, such as affordable housing. However, discussions about increased building height also drove subcommittee concerns about impacts from new development, including gentrification, view blockage, historic preservation, and consideration for existing business success.

The subcommittee’s discussions on the topic of housing highlighted the following issues:
 Increased building height does not, on its own, enable more housing units because in Morro Bay residential density is tied to the size of the lot, not the size of the building. (In other words, under current regulations, a taller building does not ensure more dwelling units, only larger, more expensive units.)
 A recent comprehensive study commissioned by SLOCOG shows that new, “Affordable by Design” housing is not economically feasible in Morro Bay (SLOCOG, 2023).  Additional housing downtown would have a positive impact on business activity.  “Form-Based Codes” are one way to allow for larger buildings downtown while requiring design features, such as upper-story setbacks, to ensure new development is compatible with the City’s character.

Character Defining Buildings
The loss of character defining buildings downtown was a concern expressed by the subcommittee with respect to new development. The subcommittee discussed the issue during its 11/8/2023 meeting with guest speaker Glenn Silloway of the Historical Society of Morro Bay.

The City of Morro Bay does not have a historic preservation ordinance, and a historical resource survey has not been conducted in the City. While State and Federal

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 6 governments both publish standards for historic preservation, including requirements for the treatment of historic resources, there are very few buildings downtown that would qualify for this type of protection absent a local ordinance.

The subcommittee was very supportive of a project to conduct a local survey of character defining buildings. The survey would identify the buildings that have qualities (e.g. size, materials, architectural features such as recessed entries, storefront design, roof design, etc.) that are either uniquely Morro Bay, or consistent with Morro Bay’s character. The goal is not necessarily to preserve those buildings, but rather for the City to use design guidelines or other standards to ensure these features are respected and promoted in new development, without copying those building designs.

View Protection
View protection was discussed by committee members concerned about new development reducing the visibility of key scenic resources such as the estuary, the sandspit, boats in the harbor, Morro Rock, and other features. It was noted that as a person travels down Morro Bay Boulevard towards the harbor, views open up and new development could impact views by creating a canyon effect.

View preservation is an important topic for any coastal city concerned about access to visual resources. The City of Morro Bay has a long list of valuable scenic resources, but there is no specific protection in place for views, except along the Embarcadero.

Building height normally does not have a substantial impact on views from the sidewalk or street adjacent to the building itself. For example, along Main Street, a pedestrian’s view of Morro Rock is equally blocked by a single-story building as a three-story building. Along Morro Bay Boulevard, the view of the estuary is parallel to the street but can be blocked intermittently by street trees.

The subcommittee’s concerns with views were for public views, not private views. The best way to preserve public views is to first identify the visual resources that the public has access to, and then to identify the key viewing areas associated with those visual resources that need to be protected. Once key viewing areas are established, the City can work to ensure long-term preservation of those views through regulations or the purchase of viewshed easements, if necessary. Funding of the research project would be a challenge; the grant funded Waterfront Master Plan Update may provide a starting point.

Process Improvements
One of the most important factors in determining if a property will be developed or redeveloped is whether the development process is predictable and relatively streamlined.

The City of Morro Bay’s development process has improved over the past few years, especially with the adoption of new Zoning Regulations, which reduced the number of projects subject to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Coastal Development Permit

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 7 process. However, all new buildings and major redevelopments downtown will require a CUP and Coastal Commission approval.

While new development requires a fairly long and complex permitting process, the City should still be able to provide reliable timeframes for project processing. If the City were able to publish accurate processing timeframes for its various permit types, developers and property owners could more accurately factor in the time and cost associated with permit processing when deciding whether - or not - to develop. City staff will continue to improve processes and be as helpful as possible – just as important is the City’s ability to communicate accurate permitting timeframes to the public.

Traditional Economic Development
Another major topic discussed by the subcommittee is the ongoing need for the City to be engaged in traditional economic development activities.

Traditional economic development may include activities such as support for business retention and expansion, beautification through public improvements, parking management initiatives, improvements to bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and other investments.

The City of Morro Bay does not have a designated in-house position for economic development. Instead, the city contracts with the Chamber of Commerce for economic development support. In addition, various city staff, including the Community Development Director, the Harbor Director, and other Executive Team members all have some component of economic development within the scope of their positions.

Take-Aways
To conclude, members of the subcommittee expressed an interest in continuing the effort to work together to ultimately define the DDD. Recognizing the complexity of the work, additional efforts prior to initiating a new project can be accomplished by volunteers. These efforts could include defining the boundaries of the district, identifying key sites for new infill development, working with the Historical Society on the identification of character defining buildings, and identifying and implementing economic development efforts that would be meaningful to existing business owners within the proposed district boundaries.

The larger project of creating a formal district that is governed by new development standards is a long-term, expensive process. The creation of a form-based code, area plan, or other changes to City zoning regulations would require consultant support and a lengthy community engagement and public hearing process, including approval by the Coastal Commission. Such an effort would be likely to take a minimum of two years and could cost over $200,000 in new contract services to complete. Additional funding and time would be necessary depending on the level of community involvement, and the level of CEQA compliance required for the project.

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 8 Given the timeframe and costs, this report includes the following recommendations. The recommendations are intended to highlight feasible actions that can be taken in the near future to make progress on the issues of concern for the subcommittee members.

Recommendations on Next Steps
As outlined above, subcommittee discussions were helpful for clarifying the areas of concern as well as informing decision-makers of the complexity of the work ahead. As stated above, forming a new district is an expensive and involved project. However, subcommittee discussions revealed small, tangible actions that the City can accomplish to start the process of addressing the key issues involved.

The following recommendations are provided by the Interim Community Development Director who supported the subcommittee’s work during its final three meetings. These recommendations should be reviewed by subcommittee members, the incoming Community Development Director, the City Manager, and appropriate staff before being brought before City Council for further direction.

Housing
The subcommittee discussed different considerations associated with increased height downtown. Given the substantial concerns expressed with potential impacts from new, taller mixed-use projects in this area, subcommittee members discussed the benefits of a form-based code – a type of code that regulates the form of a building while relaxing limitations on allowed uses. While a form-based code may be worth pursuing in the long run, development of a new code would be an expensive, long-term project. Rather than waiting years for a new code or area plan to be developed, the city should maximize the use of tools within the existing zoning regulations, including the use of affordable housing density bonuses (Zoning Regulation Section 17.24.040).

Recommendation #1: The City should work closely with affordable housing developers to identify appropriate sites within the Downtown area for development of new, mixed-use, housing projects. Projects could be 100% affordable, or mixed income. Currently, an affordable housing density bonus (Zoning Regulations Section 17.24.040) is the only way to accomplish increased building height and density that is needed to produce successful downtown mixed-use development projects. This is a course of action that can be pursued immediately.

Character Defining Buildings
The identification of character defining buildings was important to subcommittee members. Concerns were expressed that without identification and some form of protection, the City could lose character defining buildings. The subcommittee discussed the challenges of preserving buildings without a local historic preservation ordinance, including time and cost with uncertain outcomes. However, the Historical Society has offered to provide a preliminary survey of character defining buildings.

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 9 Recommendation #2: Direct staff to work with the Historical Society of Morro Bay in support of their volunteer efforts to provide a preliminary survey of character defining buildings within the Downtown. While the survey would not necessarily result in further protection for the buildings identified, it would inform City decision makers about building features that reflect the character of development in Morro Bay. The design features evident in these characterdefining buildings can be used in new development projects, and inform future design guidelines for the Downtown Design District. It would also provide helpful baseline information should City decide to pursue creation of a historical preservation ordinance in the future.

View Protection
Another concern expressed with increased height limits and the development of new, mixed-use buildings downtown is view protection. As previously discussed, the process for assessing view impacts normally requires a formal process to identify visual resources and key viewing areas. As a matter of policy, many jurisdictions include guidelines or programs to avoid blocking views from key viewing areas. In some jurisdictions, views may be protected by ordinance, but this is much more difficult to accomplish because of the potential impact on property rights. While “how” to achieve view protection is challenging, some practical next steps are recommended.

Recommendation #3: Recognition of the value of view protection among decision makers is important for defining the scope of any future standards or guidelines for development in a Downtown Design District. Staff can evaluate the potential for incorporating a discussion of visual resource in the Waterfront Master Plan Update. The identification of visual resources and key viewing areas is an important first step. The City may also be able to work with students from Cal Poly to initiate an informal study.

For long-term consideration, if design guidelines or a formbased code are created in the future, the code could require second and third level setbacks where appropriate so that as buildings get taller, upper floors will not impact the visual character of the street or impede views.

Process Improvements
Process improvements are important to accomplish in support of new development and other investments in the City of Morro Bay. Many processes in the City suffer from long timeframes, but the biggest concern expressed by prospective developers is the uncertainty associated with applications for development. Reducing timeframes is always desirable, however, the predictability of the approval process should be considered a bigger priority. While some actions, such as appeal proceedings, are beyond staff control, the City could make major strides in its relationship with the

Downtown Design District – Staff Summary and Recommendations Page 10 development community if it carefully tracked permit timeframes and published accurate information so that applicants know what to expect.

Recommendation #4: The Community Development Department should explore and, if possible, publish accurate permit processing timelines for a variety of permit types.

Traditional Economic Development
To the extent that the purpose of a new Downtown Design District is to support development of infill projects that include housing, the effort should include a focus on traditional economic development activities to promote the success of existing businesses. With or without a formal Downtown Design District, many cities have found that business retention and expansion activities are critical to the success of the local economy. Such activities help successful businesses expand through identification of new locations or by facilitating the permit process. They identify new businesses that would be a good fit at a particular location and recruit those businesses. Economic development activities help create a community culture of being “open for business,” which can spur additional investment. Subcommittee members, particularly the business owners, helped highlight actions the City could take to be more supportive of existing businesses.

Recommendation #5: The City should explore options to enhance current economic development resources, including additional staff support. The City should increase and direct its economic development efforts to the downtown area if it establishes a formal Downtown Design District. These activities should include traditional support for business retention and expansion, and public investments in streetscape improvements, as well. Streetscape improvements, such as benches, planter boxes, street trees, and corner bulb-outs can help to define the boundaries of the area, increase visual interest, and spur additional improvements by private property owners.

Quintana Rd.

Piney Way
Monterey Ave.

Ma ni St.

Kern Ave.

P
a
c
i
f
i
c
S
t
.

M
o
r
r
o
B
a
y
B
l
v
d
.

H
a
r
b
o
r
S
t
.

P
e
l
i
c
a
n
D
r
.

D
u
n
e
s
S
t
.

B
e
a
c
h
S
t
.

Bay Ave.

Shasta Ave
N
.
apa Ave.

Morro Ave.

Kennedy Way
Market Ave.

Bernardo Ave.

M
a
r
i
n
a
S
t
.

Fresno Ave.

Estero Ave.

CityofMorroBay
DowntownDesignDistrict
0200
Feet ¯
LEGEND
CityLimit(Line)
StreetCenterlines
DowntownDesignDistrict
W:\GIS\CityofMorroBay\Planning\Projects\D-CityMap-CommercialDistrict.mxd

Prepared By: CFN Dept Review: EAC
City Manager Review: ____ City Attorney Review: __CFN____ Staff Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: July 19, 2024 FROM: Chris F. Neumeyer, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement

RECOMMENDATION
Consider approval of the Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement for City Manager Yvonne Kimball and authorization for the Mayor to sign the Second Amendment on behalf of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay.

ALTERNATIVE
No alternatives proposed.

FISCAL IMPACT
One time cost of $1,063.25 for a retention bonus and then annual cost of applying COLA increase to City Manager’s salary in conformity with the COLA salary increases received by City Department Heads, which will total $35,155 for the three years of approved COLA increases for City Department Heads through Fiscal Year 2026/27, and thereafter consistent with COLA salary increases as approved later in time for City Department Heads.

BACKGROUND
Effective August 14, 2023, the City and Ms. Kimball entered into a written contract for her to serve as City Manager (“Agreement”). On April 23, 2024, the Council approved a First Amendment to the Agreement to provide Ms. Kimball a salary increase to Step 5 for an annual salary totaling $222,911.

DISCUSSION
The proposed Second Amendment to the Agreement provides City Manager Kimball with additional benefits, including some of the benefits that the former City Manager received pursuant to his employment contract, as amended, with the City. This Second Amendment does the following: (1) increases City Manager Kimball’s maximum vacation leave accrual bank from 300 hours to 310 hours; (2) provides that the City shall grant to City Manager Kimball annual cost of living adjustments to salary similar, if any, to those COLAs provided to the salary of the City Department Heads; and (3) provides a one-time lump sum retention bonus of $1,063.25.

AGENDA NO: 9.b
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2024

01181.0001/1000122.1 2
To be sure the legal requirements are met, it is recommended the Mayor read the below description of the benefits to be paid pursuant to the Second Amendment:
“The City Manager will receive an extra 10 hours of maximum vacation leave bank accrual from 300 to 310 hours total; consistent with the COLA salary increases provided to City Department Heads the City Manager’s annual salary for FY 2024/25 will be $234,062, for FY 2025/26 will be $245,773, and for FY 2026/27 will be $258,066, totaling an increase of $35,155 over a three year period, with further increases thereafter consistent with COLA salary increases provided to City Department Heads; and, the City Manager will receive a one-time retention bonus of $1,063.25 to be paid no later than the second regular pay period following the effective date of the Second Amendment.”

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council consider approval of the Second Amendment to the employment contract with Yvonne Kimball, City Manager, and authorization for the Mayor to sign the contract on behalf of the City Council of the City of Morro Bay.

ATTACHMENTS

1. (proposed) Second Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement

2. First Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement

3. Link to City Manager Employment Agreement

1 01181.0001/1000038.1

CITY OF MORRO BAY

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “SECOND AMENDMENT”) is entered into and made effective the 23
th day of July, 2024, by and between the CITY OF MORRO BAY, a general law city and municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “CITY”), and Yvonne Kimball, an individual (hereinafter referred to as “EMPLOYEE”). For purposes of this SECOND AMENDMENT, CITY and EMPLOYEE may be collectively referred to as the “Parties” or individually as a “Party.”

R E C I T A L S
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2023 the City Council of the CITY approved the City Manager Employment Agreement (“AGREEMENT”), which appointed EMPLOYEE to the position of City Manager effective August 14, 2023, and set forth the terms and conditions of her employment with the CITY; and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2024, the CITY and EMPLOYEE amended the terms of the AGREEMENT by a FIRST AMENDMENT (the term “AGREEMENT” hereinafter inclusive of terms of FIRST AMENDMENT) in order to provide EMPLOYEE compensation at Step 5 of the salary range for the position of City Manager; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.2 of the AGREEMENT provides the AGREEMENT may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the Parties by written amendment, as approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and EMPLOYEE now desire to amend the terms of the AGREEMENT in order to provide EMPLOYEE with the following additional benefits: 1) additional 10 hour increase to the vacation leave hour maximum accrual cap; 2) grant annual cost of living salary increases similar to those provided to City department heads; and, 3) grant a retention bonus of $1,063.25.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the CITY and EMPLOYEE hereby agree as follows:
///
///
///
///

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
2 A G R E E M E N T
SECTION 1. The above recitals are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

SECTION 2. Section 6.2(b) of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (new text is in bold italics, deleted text is in strikethrough):
“6.2. Paid Leave.
…
(b) Vacation Leave. EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to one hundred sixty (160) hours of vacation leave annually to be accrued pro rata per pay period over the course of the fiscal year. Upon commencement of employment, EMPLOYEE shall be advanced ten (10) days of vacation. (Vacation days equal eight (8) hours.) Upon separation, for any reason, EMPLOYEE shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the unused vacation leave on the books then existing, at the EMPLOYEE’s then current hourly rate of pay. Unused vacation leave may be carried over into the following year to a maximum accrual of three hundred (300) hours three hundred and ten (310) hours. Any hours exceeding the maximum accumulation of 300 310 hours as of November 1st of each year will be paid out in the pay period including December 1st. EMPLOYEE shall be eligible for vacation leave cash out up to a maximum amount of 40 hours per calendar year, subject to the rules and limitations provided in the then-current Resolution Adopting Maximum Compensation and Benefits for Certain City Department Head Positions, as it may be amended from time to time. The CITY provides various leave banks for EMPLOYEE’s use, with accrual and use record-keeping being required to properly maintain the leave banks. Time off of less than two (2) continuous hours in a day does not need to be recorded by EMPLOYEE as an exempt employee of the CITY. Abuse of this exception, such as daily use or random periods within a day, will not be allowed. Unrecorded time off shall not be allowed to be combined with other paid leave during any given work day.” SECTION 3. Section 2.3 of the AGREEMENT is hereby amended to read, in its entirety, as follows (new text is in bold italics):
“2.3 Salary Review. Following the performance evaluations set forth in Section

5.2 hereof and based on the results of those performance evaluations, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, increase EMPLOYEE’s base salary to the next step. Any adjustments in the base salary following the annual performance evaluation under Section 5.2 are not automatic and instead shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council. CITY shall grant annual cost of living increases to EMPLOYEE similar, if any, to those provided to CITY Department Heads.”

SECOND AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
3 SECTION 4. New Section 2.5 (“Retention Bonus”) is hereby added to the AGREEMENT to read, in its entirety, as follows:
“2.5 Retention Bonus. EMPLOYEE shall receive a one-time retention bonus of One Thousand Sixty-Three Dollars and Twenty-Five cents ($1,063.25) to be paid to EMPLOYEE no later than the second regular pay period following the effective date of this SECOND AMENDMENT.”
SECTION 5. Except as expressly amended by this SECOND AMENDMENT, all the terms, conditions, and compensation of EMPLOYEE’s employment by the CITY as and for her employment as City Manager shall be as set forth in the AGREEMENT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused this SECOND AMENDMENT to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor, and duly attested by its officers thereunto duly authorized, and EMPLOYEE has signed and executed this SECOND AMENDMENT.

CITY OF MORRO BAY
_______________________________
Carla Wixom, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Dana Swanson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Chris F. Neumeyer, City Attorney

EMPLOYEE
_____________________________
Yvonne Kimball, City Manager