Pacific Grove City Council
January 19, 2022

CITY COUNCIL

ERRATA SHEET

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Kerry Lindstrom, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: 01/19/2022
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Agenda- Errata Sheet
Attached is additional information for your consideration at the January 19, 2022, City Council Meeting:

Agenda Item Information Provided/Corrected

13A At the request of Councilmember Coletti, the following document is added to the record and attached: MPWMD Monthly Allocation Report for November 2021. 13B Corrections to Agenda Report, Promissory Agreement, and Appendix B.  See redlined pages attached.  Revised copy of Appendix A and Water Release, see attached. 13B At the request of Councilmember Coletti, the following document is added to the record and attached: May 20, 2015, City Council Agenda Report.
13C
The following information is related to the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021.  This information was provided to the City after the agenda was published: Management Letter and Communications with Those Charged with Governance.
13F
At the request of Councilmember Coletti, the following documents are added to the record and attached:  December 14, 2011, City Council Agenda Report and January 5, 2011, City Council Agenda Report.

Attachments
MPWMD Monthly Report
Agenda Report
Promissory Agreement
Appendix A
Appendix B
Water Release
May 20, 2015 Agenda Report
Management Letter
Those Charged with Governance
December 14, 2011 Agenda Report
January 5, 2011 Agenda Report
EXHIBIT 21-A

MONTHLY ALLOCATION REPORT
Reported in Acre-Feet
For the month of November 2021

* Does not include 15.280 Acre-Feet from the District Reserve prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 73.

U:\staff\Boardpacket\2021\20211213\Info Items\21\Item-21-Exh-A.docx

Jurisdiction

Paralta
Allocation*

Changes

Remaining

PREParalta
Credits

Changes

Remaining

Public
Credits

Changes

Remaining

Total
Available

Airport District

8.100 0.000 5.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.197 Carmel-by-the-Sea

19.410 0.000 1.398 1.081 0.000 1.081 0.910 0.000 0.182 2.661 Del Rey Oaks

8.100 0.000 0.000 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Monterey

76.320 0.000 0.245 50.659 0.000 0.181 38.121 0.000 2.451 2.877 Monterey County

87.710 0.000 10.579 13.080 0.000 0.352 7.827 0.000 1.775 12.706 Pacific Grove

25.770 0.000 0.000 1.410 0.000 0.014 15.874 0.000 0.065 0.079 Sand City

51.860 0.000 0.000 0.838 0.000 0.000 24.717 0.000 23.373 23.373 Seaside

65.450 0.000 0.000 34.438 0.003 31.670 2.693 0.000 1.144 32.814

District Reserve

9.000 0.000 9.000 N/A N/A 9.000
TOTALS

342.720

0.000

26.419

101.946

0.003

33.298

90.142

0.000

28.990

88.707

Allocation Holder

Water Available

Changes this Month

Total Demand from Water
Permits Issued

Remaining Water Available
Quail Meadows

33.000 0.000 32.320 0.680
Water West

12.760 0.033 9.672 3.088
Agenda No. 0

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: January 19, 2022
SUBJECT: Promissory Agreement for Payment of Water Entitlement for the PG Hotel, formerly known as the Hotel Durrell.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a promissory agreement for water entitlement for the Pacific Grove (PG) Hotel, formerly known as the Hotel Durrell, to be located at 157 Grand Avenue (APN 006-173-002).

DISCUSSION
The Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) sets forth water distribution rules in Title 11. Chapter 11.68 governs Water Entitlement processes by which potable water made available by funding and operation of the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (PGLWP) are available for sale. The City began sales of entitlement water in July 2019.

Commercial projects purchasing water entitlement include the PG Hotel located at 157 Grand Avenue and the mixed-use project at 520 Lighthouse Ave. Water has been distributed by the MPWMD for the 520 Lighthouse mixed-use project. Final occupancy will not be granted until the promissory agreement is paid in full.

At the September 1, 2021, City Council meeting the City Council adopted Ordinance 21-023 to approve a code change to 11.68.040 Entitlement Water to enable Promissory Agreements associated with payment of entitlement water sales. Per PGMC 11.68.040 (c), City Council approval shall be required for the City to enter into any promissory agreement related to payment for entitlement water. The maximum amount payable pursuant to the promissory agreement shall not exceed 90 percent of the purchase price with a 10 percent deposit required at the time of the execution of the agreement.

The PG Hotel is requesting Council approval for a Promissory Agreement to defer the payment of water entitlement, due to the scale of the project. The opportunity to stage costs can promote completion of projects that rely on construction loan financing. The obligation to pay water entitlement costs will be secured by the City’s ability to withhold final occupancy permits. The 8.66 8.816 acre-feet requested will cost$1,515,500.00 $1,542,800 with the 30% discount recently reauthorized by the City Council and in effect until June 2022. The required 10% deposit in the amount of $151,550.00 $154,280.00 will need to be paid to execute the Promissory Agreement.

OPTIONS

1. Do not approve Promissory Agreement

2. Provide an alternative action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The issuance of a Promissory Agreement is neither a gift or water nor of public funds. The Agreement simply allows the developer of a large project, as defined in PGMC 11.68.040, to leverage financing so that the large financial outlay associated with the purchase of water can be deferred until the time of final inspection and certificate of occupancy. This is a tool that can help investment in the City and increase revenues. Resulting from increased sales and property tax. Conversely, the City will not “lose” money if the applicant defaults on the Agreement as no the Agreement does not constitute a loan and the City will retain the 10% deposit to cover any administrative expenses.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Facilitate Local Business Recovery: Review and revise existing policies and programs and develop a strategic plan to better serve existing businesses.

Attachments
Draft Promissory Agreement
Draft Deed of Trust
Certificates of Good Standing
Water Release Form
Water Subscription Agreement
Water Promissory Note
1 PROMISSORY AGREEMENT
This Promissory Note, (“NOTE”) dated for reference purposes as of ______________ (“Effective Date”), is made in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, by which the Parties agree as follows:

The CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE (CITY)
hereby promises to sell, transfer and convey to

ROHNERT PARK RI LP, BELVNUS, LLC,
TRAVEL INN ASSOCIATES, LP, and MOHAMMAD REZAI
(Collectively, BUYER)
Water Entitlement in the amount totaling 8.66 AF 8.816 AF which is the subject of this NOTE under the terms and conditions set forth below.

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, PROMISES:

1. BUYER is the owner of record of the property commonly known as 157 Grand Avenue, APNs 006-174-003, 006-174-011, & 006-174-012 APN 006-173-002 (the Property). Title of the Property is taken as follows:

ROHNERT PARK RI LP. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 62.0% INTEREST; BELVNUS, LLC, A

CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS TO AN
UNDIVIDED 21.0% INTEREST; TRAVEL INN ASSOCIATES, LP, A

CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS TO AN UNDIVIDED

7.0% INTEREST AND MOHAMMAD REZAI, A MARRIED MAN AS

HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY AS TO AN UNDIVIDED

10.0% INTEREST

2. This NOTE evidences the obligation of BUYER to CITY for repayment of funds under a Water Subscription Agreement between BUYER and CITY. The terms and covenants of the Water Subscription Agreement are incorporated in this NOTE by reference, as if set forth in its entirety.

3. The Water Entitlement subject to this NOTE shall be used coley solely upon the Property and shall be subject to the conditions contained herein and in Water Subscription Agreement.

4. PRINCIPAL: BUYER promises to pay CITY the principal sum of $1,515,500.00, $1,542,800 calculated at the rate of $175,000 per Acre Foot.

Water Promissory Note
2 PAYMENT PROVISIONS: This Note shall be repaid by an initial down payment of $151,550.00, $154,280.00 representing ten percent (10%) of the NOTE’s Principal. This down payment shall be due upon execution of this NOTE. Payment of the remaining balance shall be deferred until BUYER submits a Notice of Completion to CITY. A Final Inspection shall be dependent on full and complete satisfaction of this NOTE and release of the Water Entitlement for use by BUYER on the property At any time while not in default under this NOTE, BUYER may pay the outstanding balance then owing under this NOTE to CITY, without penalty.

5. INTEREST: This NOTE shall accrue interest at the rate of zero (0) percent per annum provided the BUYER is not in default. Should the BUYER be in default as to the terms of the NOTE, interest on the unpaid principal of this NOTE shall accrue interest which shall be payable at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum.

6. This NOTE is secured by a Deed of Trust recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Monterey County (Trust Deed). The Trust Deed securing this NOTE provides that CITY may at its option, declare all funds secured by the Trust Deed immediately due and payable, if any interest in the real property is sold, transferred or conveyed to any person, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. The Trust Deed further provides that if BUYER does not comply with the requirements of the Water Subscription Agreement and fails to come into compliance with the Agreement within ten (10) days after CITY’s written notice to BUYER of such failure, CITY may at its option, declare all funds secured by the Trust Deed immediately due and payable.

7. To the extent applicable, BUYER shall maintain its corporate existence in good standing in California. BUYER shall maintain in force all licenses, approvals, and agreements, the loss of which could have a material adverse effect as to performance on this NOTE. BUYER shall provide to CITY a Certificate of Good Standing or Certificate of Existence from the appropriate authority, submitted within ten days upon request by CITY, certifying that BUYER is in good standing as a corporation or as an LLC, as may be applicable, in the State of California.

8. DEFAULT: All sums remaining unpaid under this NOTE shall become immediately due and payable, at CITY’s option, upon ten (10) day’s calendar notice without further demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, on the occurrence of any of the following events:
a. BUYER’s failure to make any payment when due under the terms of this NOTE; b. The filing of a petition in bankruptcy by, or the initiation of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws against, the BUYER or any present or future guarantor of this NOTE;
c. BUYER’s or any present or future guarantor’s default under any agreement or instrument executed in connection with this NOTE; or
d. The revocation of any guaranty of this NOTE by any guarantor.

Water Promissory Note
3 9. POST DEFAULT INTEREST: Upon default, interest on the unpaid principal balance of this NOTE is payable at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum until this NOTE is paid in full, or until the date of Water Entitlement revocation occurs as provided below.

10. PAYMENT OF NOTE COSTS AND EXPENSES BY CITY: If the CITY has required the BUYER or any other holder of this NOTE to pay immediately in full as described above, CITY shall have the right to be reimbursed by BUYER for all of its costs and expenses to the extent not prohibited by applicable law, including but not limited to, outside collection agencies and reasonable attorney’s fees.

11. REVOCATION OF WATER ENTITLEMENT UPON DEFAULT: Upon any event of default referenced above, the CITY at CITY’s option, upon ten (10) day’s calendar notice without further notice, demand, or presentment, and regardless of any prior forbearance, may revoke in full or in part the increment of Water Entitlement provided in the Water Subscription Agreement referenced above, in proportion to remaining sums (not to include interest, costs or fees) that are unpaid by the BUYER.

12. General Provisions:
a. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS: If any action is commenced which arises out of or related to this Promissory Note, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party such sums as the court may adjudge to be reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and expenditures in the action, in addition to costs and expenditures otherwise allowed by law. Recovery of these fees or expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding. In any matter arising out of or relating to the bankruptcy of BUYER, BUYER agrees to pay all of CITY’s costs and expenditures, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees, which may be incurred in enforcing or protecting CITY’s rights or interests. b. NON-WAIVER: No failure or delay by CITY in exercising CITY’s rights under this NOTE shall be considered a waiver of such rights.
c. NOTICE: Any notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be given in writing and shall be delivered (a) in person, (b) by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, (c) by facsimile, or (d) by a commercial overnight courier that guarantees next day delivery and provides a receipt, and such notices shall be made to the Parties at the addresses listed below.
d. WAIVER: Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this NOTE must be in writing and signed by the CITY and the BUYER. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this NOTE. e. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW: The Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement. f. GOVERNING LAW. This NOTE shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action shall be in the County of Monterey.

Water Promissory Note
4 g. COUNTERPARTS. This NOTE may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same NOTE.
h. AUTHORITY. Any individual executing this NOTE on behalf of the CITY or the BUYER represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this NOTE on behalf of such Party and bind the Party to the terms and conditions of this NOTE.
i. INTEGRATION. This NOTE including the exhibits and any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire agreement between the CITY and the BUYER with respect to the subject matter of this NOTE and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between CITY and BUYER as of the effective date which is the date that the CITY signs the NOTE. j. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in the NOTE are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the NOTE for any cause. If a part of this NOTE is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this NOTE is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

13. EXECUTION: The BUYER executes this NOTE as a principal and not as a surety. If there is more than one BUYER, each BUYER shall be jointly and severally liable under this NOTE.
[signature page to follow]
Water Promissory Note
5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and BUYER have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE BUYER
By:

City Manager Name
Date:

By: (Signature of Chair, President, or
Vice-President) *
By:

Mayor
Date:
(Printed Name and Title)
Date:

Attachment: Water Subscription Agreement
Certificate of Good Standing
Deed of Trust
Water Promissory Note
6 APPENDIX A

WATER ENTITLEMENT INCREMENT ASSIGNED
Location (Property Address): 157 Grand Avenue, Pacific Grove CA 93950 Subscriber Name(s): JAY DESAI

1. Quantity of Water Entitlement requested: 8.816 (fraction of per acre foot)

2. Original Cost

3. Discount

4. Total Amount Due
$2,204,000 ($250,000 per acre foot)
$ 661,200 (30% discount until June 30, 2022)
$1,542,800
I execute this document in the City of Pacific Grove, and declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided is true and correct of my knowledge.
____________________________________________ _________________________________ JAY DESAI Date
1 APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

The land referred to is situated in the County of Monterey, City of Pacific Grove, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL I:

Lots numbered 10 and 12 in block numbered 41 as said lots and block are shown on that certain map entitled, "Map of Pacific Grove Retreat, Monterey County, Cal., St. John Cox, Surveyor, July 1875", Filed for record August 8, 1876 in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Monterey, State of California, in volume 1, of Maps, "Cities and Towns", at page 49.

PARCEL II:

Lot nine (9) in block numbered forty-one (41) in Pacific Grove Retreat grounds as surveyed by St. John Cox, Esq., Surveyor, July, AD. 1875, and duly recorded in volume 1, "Cities and Towns", at page 49, in the office of the County Recorder of said County of Monterey.

PARCEL Ill:

Lot eleven (11) in block numbered forty-one (41) In Pacific Grove Retreat grounds as surveyed by St. John Cox, Esq., Surveyor, July, AD. 1875, and duly recorded in volume 1, "Cities and Towns", at page 49, in the office of the County Recorder of said County of Monterey.

APN: 006-174-003 (PARCEL I) and 006-174-011 (PARCEL II) and 006-174-012 (PARCEL Ill)
The land referred to is situated in the County of Monterey, City of Pacific Grove, State of California, and is described as follows:

PARCEL ONE:

Parcel 2 as shown on Parcel Map recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Monterey County, State of California, on August 19, 2015 in Book 23, Page 48 of Parcel Maps.

PARCEL TWO:
25 foot reciprocal vehicle access easement over a portion of Parcel 1, as shown on the above referenced Parcel Map.

APN: 006-173-002

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: Mark Brodeur, Director Community and Economic
Development Department
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2015
SUBJECT: Appeal of Parcel Map PM 14-602 to subdivide one lot into two at 542 Lighthouse Ave (Holman Building site)
CEQA: This action qualifies for a Class 15 Categorical Exemption for Minor Land Divisions under Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the parcel map with the following additional conditions:

Plan Revision: Within 30 days of approval, Applicant shall submit revised plans that include the following corrections: 1) Move the property line 5 feet north, thereby increasing the size of Parcel 1 and decreasing the size of Parcel 2; 2) Increase the width of the easement on Parcel 2 from 20 feet to 25 feet; and (3) Show 14 parking spaces located on Parcel 2 to be reserved for the exclusive benefit of Parcel 1, which location on Parcel 2 shall be immediately adjacent to Parcel 1.

Water Credit Assignment: Assignment of water credits shall be made an explicit condition of approval of the parcel map.

BACKGROUND
On December 9, 2014, a Parcel Map application was submitted to subdivide one existing 59,218 square foot parcel (approximately 1.36 acres) bounded by Lighthouse Avenue, Grand Avenue, Central Avenue, and Fountain Avenue, into two parcels, and to include within that boundary a 20 foot wide easement. There are two existing buildings on the site: the former Holman Department store located at 542 Lighthouse Ave, and a singlestory building located at 157 Grand Ave (“Grand Central Station”). The site also includes an impervious surface parking lot.

The proposed parcel map conforms to the General Plan designation, the C-1-T zoning district, and the City’s Parcel Map procedures per PGMC § 24.08, and the Subdivision Map Act. There are no legal issues that would prohibit the approval of the parcel map subdividing one lot into two.

Parcel 1 is proposed to be approximately 24,600 square feet (0.57 acres), occupied by the existing Holman Building. Parcel 1 as proposed would also have rights to a 20’ wide Agenda No. 11A

2 easement on Parcel 2 that would provide access to the surface parking lot and to the rear of the Holman Building.

Parcel 2 is proposed to be approximately 34,600 square feet (0.79 acres) and would contain the surface parking lot and an existing single-story building. Parcel 2 is proposed to include 14 parking spaces to be used for the exclusive benefit of Parcel 1.

No development proposals for either parcel are on file with the Community and Economic Development Department.

The Zoning Administrator is the approval authority for Parcel Maps, but as permitted in PGMC Table 23.70.012-1, the Zoning Administrator referred this Parcel Map request to the first appeal authority, the Planning Commission, for decision.

The application was heard before the Planning Commission on March 19, 2015. It was not approved, on a 3-3-0-1 vote. An appeal of the technical denial was received and the required fee paid. The City Council considers the item de novo.

DISCUSSION
The property is currently designated Commercial by the General Plan and zoned C-1-T.

This is the only parcel in the City zoned C-1-T; the C-1-T zoning regulations were adopted by the voters in 1994 with the passage of Measure E (Attachment 6). Several issues related to the parcel and the proposed lot-split deserve special consideration.

Site coverage. Presently, the Holman parcel contains existing development that is legal noncomplying for site coverage and building height, as the development does not meet current zoning standards. (Site coverage is defined as the percentage of the entire site covered by structure and other impervious surfaces.) The current development exceeds the maximum permissible site coverage. As it exists today, 100% of the Holman block is covered with building or impervious surfaces. Current zoning limits maximum site coverage from 75% to 90% depending on the height of structures. The Holman Building, as built, also exceeds the maximum allowable height.

The Zoning Code prohibits any legal non-complying development from being “enlarged or increased” (§23.68.020). In this case, approval of a lot split, in and of itself, does not enlarge or increase the non-conforming buildings/development, as the development of the existing parcel is already at 100% site coverage and the actual site coverage of the buildings and other development remains unchanged. Similarly, the proposed lot split in and of itself, does not bring into play Zoning Code requirements related to building height, as specified in PGMC Table 23.31.0401.

By splitting the lot into two parcels, both parcels remain at 100% site coverage and retain their legal non-complying status.2

1 Such requirements, on the other hand, would be relevant for development proposals that may be made for either parcel, if the lot split were to be approved.
2 Proposals can be entertained, for example, to bring Parcel 1 (the Holman Building parcel) into greater compliance with respect to the C-1-T zone’s site coverage requirements. The asphalt paving (an impervious surface) in the proposed easement could be removed and replaced with pervious materials that would allow Agenda No. 11A

3 The recommended approach is to not condition the parcel split with a condition to remove paving. Such a condition would not be timely, and would be difficult to enforce over time.

Such a condition should instead be considered when either parcel submits a new development proposal and application.

Dwelling Units. Per Table 23.31.040, the entire C-1-T zoning district is limited to a maximum of 25 dwelling units. The Code is silent as to how or whether the number of units would be divvied up should the parcel be subdivided. In the absence of any conditions or other restrictions, the first applicant to submit a complete application for dwelling unit approval would have first claim upon units available within this limit.

Subsequent applications could seek approval for dwelling units only to the extent allowable dwelling units remain.

Measure E of 1994 requires the Council to adopt regulations specific to the C-1-T zone before the City may accept any application for condominium units in the zone. As stated above, no development application for either of the resulting two parcels has been submitted. To date, the City has not adopted the condominium regulations contemplated by Measure E.

Easement. The proposal shows a 20-foot wide easement to the north of the existing Holman Building. The purpose of the easement is to grant access to Parcel 2, should the property be developed with an infill project that is of a greater density and intensity than the existing surface parking lot and single-story building. A small portion of the proposed easement does not meet the 20 feet width requested by the Fire Department. For this reason, to better facilitate access to the Holman Building, and for the rationale stated in the site coverage discussion above, staff recommends the width of the easement on Parcel 2 be increased from 20 feet wide to 25 feet wide.

Parking. Parcel 1 may be able to accommodate parking in the lower basement level of the existing Holman building. To date, structural studies have not been submitted to demonstrate whether or not parking can be accommodated in the building’s lower level.

Also, no parking studies been completed.
14 parking spaces on Parcel 2 are proposed to be reserved for the benefit of Parcel 1.

These would serve active ground floor uses that currently occupy the Holman building.

The Parcel Map application proposes a condition requiring the 14 parking spaces for this use. Staff recommends the parking condition be made more explicit, and specify that 14 reserved parking spaces on Parcel 2 be dedicated for the exclusive benefit of Parcel 1, and also specify these 14 parking spaces be located on Parcel 2, immediately adjacent to Parcel 1.

rain water to drain through it. Also, if the proposed 20-foot wide easement were increased to 25 feet wide with pervious cover, the degree of site coverage would be reduced from 100% to 85%. This is assuming, of course, that the Holman Building coverage footprint is not altered. If the building were demolished, any new development would have to be brought into full compliance with site coverage and other zoning requirements.

Agenda No. 11A

4 Water Credits. Under existing Monterey Peninsula Water Management District rules, it is appropriate to assign existing water credits on the site between the two proposed parcels. It is recommended that this assignment be made as a condition to the lot split.

The owner has proposed to assign 6.7 acre feet per year (AFY) of water credits to Parcel 1 and 1.4 AFY in water credits to Parcel 2. Assignment of water credits in these amounts should be made an explicit condition of approval of the parcel map.

CEQA. This action qualifies for a Class 15 Categorical Exemption for Minor Land Divisions under Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as it consists of division of urbanized property into less than five parcels, is conformance with the General Plan and applicable zoning standards, and meets all other criteria for a Class 15 Exemption.

FISCAL IMPACT
No direct impact from this decision. If the lot split changes the development potential and pace of development, then there could be a long-term financial impact on the City’s tax revenues.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. Parcel Map

3. Exemption

4. Appeal

5. Application

6. Measure E, 1994

7. Zoning Code Chapter 23.32 C-1 Districts and Chapter 23.33, C-1 T District, just prior to the recent reformatting
SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY:
_________________________ ____________________
Mark Brodeur, Director Thomas Frutchey
Community and Economic Development City Manager
Agenda No. 11A

RESOLUTION 15-XX

AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT
(APN 006-173-001 - 1.359 ACRES)
INTO TWO LOTS AT 542 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE
PARCEL MAP 14-602
FACTS

1. The site is located at 542 Lighthouse Ave, Pacific Grove, 93950, also known as APN 006-173- 001.

2. The site has a designation of Commercial on the adopted City of Pacific Grove General Plan Land Use Map.

3. The project consists solely of subdivision of the site into two parcels.

4. The site is located in the C-1-T zoning district.

5. A survey of the site was completed on December 5, 2014 by Bestor Engineers.

6. APN 006-173-001 is developed with two buildings currently used for commercial retail uses and a surface parking lot. The site totals 1.36 acres.

7. Parcel 1 is proposed as a 24,617 square foot lot, and Parcel 2 is proposed as a 34,601 square foot lot.

8. This project qualifies for a CEQA Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15315, Minor Land Subdivisions, Class 15.

9. Sidewalks and curbs are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

FINDINGS

1. The subdivision will neither be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the city nor impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood because the project will be improving the subject property.

2. The proposed parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision supports Land Use Policies in Chapter 2 Land Use, Policy 3, 5, 7; and 8. The subject property is not regulated by the local coastal program or any specific plans.

3. The C-1-T zoning district was approved by the voters. No provision of the C-1-T zoning district shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people.

4. The parcel map approved by this Resolution is located on a legally created lot.

5. The property is in compliance with all laws, regulations, and rules pertaining to uses, subdivision, setbacks, and any other application provisions of the Zoning Code C-1-T zoning district, outlined in PGMC §23.31.0040, with the exception of site coverage, height, and parking which are legal non-conforming.

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 1

6. The parcel map approved by this Resolution is in compliance with all citywide permits, including, but not limited to, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

7. Sanitary sewer facilities and connections are provided for each lot.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Expiration. The approval granted by this Resolution shall not expire or become void once it takes effect.

2. Construction Compliance. No construction is approved by this Resolution.

3. Terms and Conditions. All conditions of approval shall run with the land, and shall bind all future owners and possessors of the property to the terms and conditions, unless amended.

Amendments to this permit shall have force or effect only if an application is made and is approved by City, in accord with the Zoning Code.

4. Plan Revisions: Within 30 days after authorization of this Resolution, Applicant shall submit revised plans to incorporate the following elements: 1) Move the property line an additional 5 feet to the north and increase the size of Parcel 1, and decrease the size of Parcel 2, 2) show the vehicle access easement to be 25 feet in width, and 3) show the parking easement on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel 1, as required by Paragraph 7, below. Staff shall review the revised plans, determine if they are complete and determine if the plans conform to this Resolution.

5. Conformance to Plans. Changes to the site shall conform to revised plans as submitted in conformance with Condition of Approval #4 on file with the Community and Economic Development Department.

6. Deed Restriction. The new deed description of the subdivision shall be filed with the County Recorder and recorded prior to issuance of any building permit.

7. Easements. A perpetual easement shall be created and recorded to enable vehicle and fire access. A separate easement shall be created and recorded to confirm and reserve fourteen parking spaces on Parcel 2 are held for the exclusive use of Parcel 1. Each space subject to this reservation shall be immediately adjacent to Parcel 1. The subdivision shall not take effect until each the easement has been recorded.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:

1. The Council determines each Fact and each Finding set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Facts and Findings as integral parts of this Resolution.

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 1

2. Each Condition listed above is approved and made an integral part of this Resolution.

Compliance with each Condition shall be required.

3. The Council authorizes APPROVAL of Parcel Map Permit 14-602.

4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately following submission, and acceptance by City staff, of complete plans as required by this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 20th day of May, 2015, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_____________________________
BILL KAMPE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 1

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 2

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Community Development Department – Planning Division
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 93950
T :: 831.648.3190 • F :: 831.648.3184 • www.ci.pg.ca.us/cdd

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
Property Address/Location: __542 Lighthouse Ave, Pacific Grove, CA 93950___________________

Project Description:____Parcel Map application to subdivide one 59,218 square foot parcel in an urbanized area into two parcels._________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ APN: _006-173-001_______________________________________ ZC: __C-1-T_____________ GP: _Commercial_______ Lot Size: _59,218 square feet ____ PORTION BELOW TO BE COMPLETED BY A PLANNER:

Applicant Name: _Pat Ward, Bestor Engineers_____________ Phone #: _831-373-2941_______________ Mailing Address: _9701 Blue Larkspur Lane, Monterey, CA 93940_____________________ Public Agency Approving Project: City of Pacific Grove, Monterey County, California Exempt Status (Check One):
 Ministerial Project (Sec. 21080(b)(1):15268))
 Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3): 15269(a))
 Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c))
X Categorical Exemption
Type and Section Number: _Minor Land Divisions Class 15 S. 15315_______________  Statutory Exemptions
Type and Section Number: _____________________________
 Other: ____________________________________________________ Exemption Findings: _Parcel is in an urbanized area, conforms to the General Plan and zoning, and all services and access to the proposed parcels are available. The parcel was not involved in a land division within the previous two years and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent.__________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Contact Person, Title: Anastazia Aziz, AICP, Sr. Planner___________ Contact Phone: _(831) 648-3192____________________________________ Signature: _ 04/01/15_________________________
Date: __________________
Mail to: Monterey County Clerk
P.O. Box 29
Salinas, CA 93902-0570
Agenda No. 11A. Attachment 3

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 4

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 5

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 5

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 6

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 7

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 7

Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 7

PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE 23.52.020
23-39 (Revised 3/12)
(c) The height of any structure shall not exceed
25 feet.
(d) Two covered automobile parking spaces
shall be provided for the exclusive use of each
dwelling unit. [Ord. 1315 N.S. § 1, 1982].

23.45.020 Timeshare projects prohibited.

Timeshare projects shall not be permitted in the
city of Pacific Grove. [Ord. 1315 N.S. § 1, 1982].

23.45.030 Intention of chapter.

It is the intention of this chapter to avoid special
privileges for condominiums and planned unit
developments and to have such forms of development conform to the zoning standards and subdivision standards applicable to single-family residential district development. It is also the intention of this chapter in prohibiting timeshares to avoid the conversion and loss of the city’s residential stock and character. [Ord. 1315 N.S. § 1, 1982].

23.45.040 Building permit issuance restricted.

No building permit shall be issued that is not
consistent with the provisions of this enactment.
[Ord. 1315 N.S. § 1, 1982].

23.45.050 Severability.

The provisions of this enactment are independent and separable and if any one provision is held to be invalid the people declare their intention that
they would have enacted each provision separately.
[Ord. 1315 N.S. § 1, 1982].

Chapter 23.52
R-3-M DISTRICTS
Sections:

23.52.010 Regulations generally.

23.52.020 Uses permitted.

23.52.030 Regulations for R-3-M uses.

23.52.035 Special regulations for motels and
hotels built prior to 1986.

23.52.040 Statement of intent.

23.52.050 Other provisions.

23.52.060 Amendment.

23.52.010 Regulations generally.

Effective the date of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this section by the city council or by the voters of the city of Pacific Grove, the regulations of the ordinance codified in this section shall apply in the R-3-M district in lieu of any ordinance or resolution to the contrary:
(a) The R-3-M district is defined as those areas
so designated on the official zoning map of the city
of Pacific Grove referred to in PGMC 23.12.020.

Said districts may be classified by the city council
to R-1, R-H, or R-2, where already developed as
such, but no new R-3-M districts shall be created.
(b) Motel and hotel uses shall be restricted to
the R-3-M district, including any uses accessory or
ancillary to a motel. The ordinance codified in this
section shall also apply to any use described in
PGMC 23.52.020 proposed for the construction or
expansion in any R-3-M district, including uses
accessory or ancillary to such use. [Ord. 1536 N.S.
§ 2, 1986].

23.52.020 Uses permitted.

The following uses are permitted in the R-3-M
districts:
(a) Any use permitted in the R-3 district, subject to obtaining a use permit for any use for which such is required in an R-3 district;
(b) Motels, subject to first securing a use permit
in each case;
(c) Hotels, subject to first securing a use permit
in each case;
(d) Adult communities, retirement homes and
rest homes, subject to first securing a use permit in
each case. [Ord. 575 N.S., 1967; Ord. 453 N.S.,
Agenda No. 11A, Attachment 7

Page | 1 15105 Concord Circle, Ste 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159
[email protected] • www.cnallp.com
To the City Council and Management of the
City of Pacific Grove
Introduction and Internal Controls
In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of the City of Pacific Grove (the “City”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

Upcoming Accounting Pronouncements
The following is a summary of new accounting pronouncements from the Financial Accounting Standards Board:

GASB issued Statement No. 87, Leases
The objective of this statement is to better meet the information needs of financial statement users by improving accounting and financial reporting for leases by governments. This statement increases the usefulness of governments’ financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities. The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2019 but have been delayed to periods beginning after June 15, 2021, pursuant to GASB Statement No. 95. Earlier application is encouraged. Management doesn’t believe this statement will have a significant impact on the City’s financial statements.

Page | 2 15105 Concord Circle, Ste 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159
[email protected] • www.cnallp.com
GASB Statement No. 91, Conduit Debt Obligations
The objectives of this Statement are to provide a single method of reporting conduit debt obligations by issuers and eliminate diversity in practice associated with (1) commitments extended by issuers, (2) arrangements associated with conduit debt obligations, and (3) related note disclosures. This Statement also clarifies the existing definition of a conduit debt obligation; establishing that a conduit debt obligation is not a liability of the issuer; establishing standards for accounting and financial reporting of additional commitment and voluntary commitments extended by issuers and arrangements associated with the debt obligations; and improving required note disclosures. The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2020 but have been delayed to periods beginning after December 15, 2021, pursuant to GASB Statement No. 95. Earlier application is encouraged. Management doesn’t believe this statement will have a significant impact on the City’s financial statements.

GASB Statement No. 92, Omnibus 2020
The objectives of this Statement are to enhance comparability in accounting and financial reporting and to improve the consistency of authoritative literature by addressing practice issues that have been identified during implementation and application of certain GASB Statements. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting requirements for specific issues related to leases, intraentity transfers of assets, postemployment benefits, government acquisitions, risk financing and insurance-related activities of public entity risk pools, fair value measurements, and derivative instruments. The requirements of this Statement apply to the financial statements of all state and local governments. The requirements of this Statement were initially to be effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2020 but have been delayed to periods beginning after June 15, 2021, pursuant to GASB Statement No. 95. Earlier application is encouraged. Management doesn’t believe this statement will have a significant impact on the City’s financial statements.

Purpose of Communication
The purpose of this communication, which is an integral part of our audit, is to describe, for management and those charged with governance, the scope of our testing of internal control and the results of that testing, and communicate additional information that may be relevant to future Organization decision making. Accordingly, this communication is not intended to be and should not be used for any other purpose..

December 31, 2021
Morgan Hill, California
Page | 1 115105 Concord Circle, Ste. 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159
[email protected] • www.cnallp.com
To the City Council of the
City of Pacific Grove
We have audited the basic financial statements of the City of Pacific Grove as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and have issued our report thereon dated December 31, 2021. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit.

Our Responsibility under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards
As communicated in our engagement letter, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express an opinion(s) about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audit of the financial statements does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.

Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we conside red the internal control of the City of Pacific Grove solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.

We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.

Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information in documents containing City of Pacific Grove’s audited financial statements does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information.

Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements.

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated with management.

Page | 2 115105 Concord Circle, Ste. 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159
[email protected] • www.cnallp.com
Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by the City of Pacific Grove is included in Note 1 to the financial statements. There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies or their application during June 30, 2021, No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.

Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.

The most sensitive accounting estimates affecting the financial statements include unfunded liabilities and related expenses based on assumptions in actuarial studies performed on defined benefit plans.

We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the identified estimates and determined that it is reasonable in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole and in relation to the applicable opinion units.

Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting City of Pacific Grove’s financial statements relate to: cash and investments, capital assets, longterm obligations and defined benefit plans.

Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.

Page | 3 115105 Concord Circle, Ste. 130, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Tel: 408-217-8749 • E-Fax: 408-872-4159
[email protected] • www.cnallp.com
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. None of the misstatements identified by us as a result of our audit procedures and corrected by management were material, either individually or in the aggregate, to the financial statements taken as a whole or applicable opinion units. In addition, professional standards require us to communicate to you all material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures.

There were no material, corrected misstatements noted during the audit.

Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City of Pacific Grove’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.

Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management, which are included in the attached letter dated December 31, 2021.

Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.

Other Significant Findings or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City of Pacific Grove, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement. None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City of Pacific Grove’s auditors.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board and management of the City of Pacific Grove and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

December 31, 2021
Morgan Hill, California

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, California, 93950
Telephone (831) 648-3100 ⬧ Fax (831) 375-9863
December 31, 2021
Chavan & Associates, LLP
15105 Concord Circle, Ste 130
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
This representation letter is provided in connection with your audit of the basic financial statements of the City of Pacific Grove as of June 30, 2021 and for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, for the purpose of expressing opinions on whether the basic financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows, where applicable, of the various opinion units of the City of Pacific Grove in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted for governments in the United States of America (U.S.

GAAP).

Certain representations in this letter are described as being limited to matters that are material. Items are considered material, regardless of size, if they involve an omission or misstatement of accounting information that, in the light of surrounding circumstances, makes it probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying on the information would be changed or influenced by the omission or misstatement.

We confirm that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, having made such inquiries as we considered necessary for the purpose of appropriately informing ourselves as of December 31, 2021:

Financial Statements
• We have fulfilled our responsibilities, as set out in the terms of the audit engagement letter, for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements of the various opinion units referred to above in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
• We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. • We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud.
• We acknowledge our responsibility for compliance with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements.
• We have reviewed, approved, and taken responsibility for the financial statements and related notes.
• We have a process to track the status of audit findings and recommendations, as applicable. • We have identified and communicated to you all previous audits, attestation engagements, and other studies related to the audit objectives and whether related recommendations have been implemented.
• Significant assumptions used by us in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value, are reasonable.
• Related party relationships and transactions have been appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with the requirements of U.S. GAAP, as applicable. • All events subsequent to the date of the financial statements and for which U.S. GAAP requires adjustment or disclosure have been adjusted or disclosed. • We have reviewed and approved the various adjusting journal entries that were proposed by you for recording in our books and records and reflected in the financial statements. • The effects of uncorrected misstatements summarized and aggregated by you during the current engagement are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the applicable opinion units and to the financial statements as a whole.
▪ There were no uncorrected misstatements to be evaluated • The effects of all known actual or possible litigation and claims have been accounted for and disclosed in accordance with U.S. GAAP, if applicable.
• All component units, as well as joint ventures with an equity interest, are included and other joint ventures and related organizations are properly disclosed, if applicable. • All funds and activities are properly classified.
• All funds that meet the quantitative criteria in GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management's Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, GASB Statement No. 37, Basic Financial Statements—and Management's Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments: Omnibus as amended, and GASB Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities, for presentation as major are identified and presented as such and all other funds that are presented as major are considered important to financial statement users.
• All components of net position, nonspendable fund balance, and restricted, committed, assigned, and unassigned fund balance are properly classified and, if applicable, approved. • Our policy regarding whether to first apply restricted or unrestricted resources when an expense is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net position/fund balance are available is appropriately disclosed and net position/fund balance is properly recognized under the policy.
• All revenues within the statement of activities have been properly classified as program revenues, general revenues, contributions to term or permanent endowments, or contributions to permanent fund principal.
• All expenses have been properly classified in or allocated to functions and programs in the statement of activities, and allocations, if any, have been made on a reasonable basis. • All interfund and intra-entity transactions and balances have been properly classified and reported.
• Special items and extraordinary items have been properly classified and reported, if applicable. • Deposit and investment risks have been properly and fully disclosed. • Capital assets, including infrastructure assets, are properly capitalized, reported, and if applicable, depreciated.
• All required supplementary information is measured and presented within the prescribed guidelines.
• With regard to investments and other instruments reported at fair value:
o The underlying assumptions are reasonable, and they appropriately reflect management’s intent and ability to carry out its stated courses of action. o The measurement methods and related assumptions used in determining fair value are appropriate in the circumstances and have been consistently applied. o The disclosures related to fair values are complete, adequate, and in accordance with U.S. GAAP.
o There are no subsequent events that require adjustments to the fair value measurements and disclosures included in the financial statements. • With respect to the attached nonattest service(s), we have performed the following:
o Made all management decisions and performed all management functions; o Assigned a competent individual to oversee the services; o Evaluate the adequacy of the services performed;
o Evaluated and accepted responsibility for the result of the service performed; and o Established and maintained internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities. • Arrangements with financial institutions involving compensating balances or other arrangements involving restrictions on cash balances, line of credit, or similar arrangements have been properly disclosed.
• We believe that the actuarial assumptions and methods used to measure pension and other postemployment benefit liabilities and costs for financial accounting purposes are appropriate in the circumstances.

Supplementary Information in Relation to the Financial Statements as a Whole With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements (as identified in the audit report table of contents):
• We acknowledge our responsibility for the presentation of the supplementary information in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S.

GAAP), Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
• We believe the supplementary information including its form and content, is fairly presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP, GASB, federal guidelines, and state guidelines. • The methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period except for the effects from the implementation of new GASB statements as noted in the audit report and disclosures.
• When the supplementary information is not presented with the audited financial statements, management will make the audited financial statements readily available to the intended users of the supplementary information no later than the date of issuance by the entity of the supplementary information and the auditor’s report thereon. • We acknowledge our responsibility to include the auditor’s report on the supplementary information in any document containing the supplementary information and that indicates the auditor reported on such supplementary information.
• We acknowledge our responsibility to present the supplementary information with the audited financial statements or, if the supplementary information will not be presented with the audited financial statements, to make the audited financial statements readily available to the intended users of the supplementary information no later than the date of issuance by the entity of the supplementary information and the auditor’s report thereon.

Required Supplementary Information
With respect to the required supplementary information accompanying the financial statements (as identified in the audit report table of contents):
• We acknowledge our responsibility for the presentation of the required supplementary information in accordance with U.S. GAAP and GASB.
• We believe the required supplementary information, including its form and content, is measured and fairly presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP and GASB. • The methods of measurement or presentation have not changed from those used in the prior period except for the effects from the implementation of new GASB statements. • We believe the following significant assumptions or interpretations underlying the measurement or presentation of the pension schedules, and the basis for our assumptions and interpretations, are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances:
o Pension required supplementary information:
▪ Significant assumptions include the actuarial cost method, amortization method, amortization period, inflation rates, investment rate of return and mortality tables.
▪ The basis for these assumptions comes from information provided by CalPERS in their audited GASB 68 Accounting Valuation Reports and annual valuation reports used to determine the annual required contributions. o Other post-employment benefits required supplementary information:
▪ Significant assumptions include the actuarial cost method, amortization method, amortization period, inflation rates, investment rate of return, mortality tables, and healthcare cost trends rate.
▪ The basis for these assumptions comes from information provided by Bartel Associates, LLC in their actuarial valuation.

Information Provided
• We have provided you with:
o Access to all information, of which we are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements of the various opinion units referred to above, such as records, documentation, meeting minutes, and other matters; o Additional information that you have requested from us for the purpose of the audit; and o Unrestricted access to persons within the entity from whom you determined it necessary to obtain audit evidence.
• All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements.
• We have disclosed to you the results of our assessment of the risk that the financial statements may be materially misstated as a result of fraud.
• We have no knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud that affects the entity and involves:
o Management;
o Employees who have significant roles in internal control; or o Others where the fraud could have a material effect on the financial statements. • We have no knowledge of any allegations of fraud, or suspected fraud, affecting the entity’s financial statements communicated by employees, former employees, vendors, regulators, or others.
• We are not aware of any pending or threatened litigation and claims whose effects should be considered when preparing the financial statements.
• We have disclosed to you the identity of the entity’s related parties and all the related party relationships and transactions of which we are aware, as applicable. • There have been no communications from regulatory agencies concerning noncompliance with or deficiencies in accounting, internal control, or financial reporting practices. • The City of Pacific Grove has no plans or intentions that may materially affect the carrying value or classification of assets and liabilities.
• We have disclosed to you all guarantees, whether written or oral, under which the City of Pacific Grove is contingently liable, as applicable.
• We have disclosed to you all nonexchange financial guarantees, under which we are obligated and have declared liabilities and disclosed properly in accordance with GASB Statement No. 70, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Financial Guarantees, for those guarantees where it is more likely than not that the entity will make a payment on any guarantee.
• For nonexchange financial guarantees where we have declared liabilities, the amount of the liability recognized is the discounted present value of the best estimate of the future outflows expected to be incurred as a result of the guarantee. Where there was no best estimate but a range of estimated future outflows has been established, we have recognized the minimum amount within the range.
• We have disclosed to you all significant estimates and material concentrations known to management that are required to be disclosed in accordance with GASB Statement No. 62 (GASB-62), Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in PreNovember 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. Significant estimates are estimates at the balance sheet date that could change materially within the next year. Concentrations refer to volumes of business, revenues, available sources of supply, or markets or geographic areas for which events could occur that would significantly disrupt normal finances within the next year. • We have identified and disclosed to you the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements that could have a direct and material effect on financial statement amounts, including legal and contractual provisions for reporting specific activities in separate funds. • There are no:
o Violations or possible violations of laws or regulations, or provisions of contracts or grant agreements whose effects should be considered for disclosure in the financial statements or as a basis for recording a loss contingency, including applicable budget laws and regulations.
o Unasserted claims or assessments that our lawyer has advised are probable of assertion and must be disclosed in accordance with GASB-62.
o Other liabilities or gain or loss contingencies that are required to be accrued or disclosed by GASB-62.
o Continuing disclosure consent decree agreements or filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and we have filed updates on a timely basis in accordance with the agreements (Rule 240, 15c2-12).
• The City of Pacific Grove has satisfactory title to all owned assets, and there are no liens or encumbrances on such assets nor has any asset or future revenue been pledged as collateral, except as disclosed to you.
• We have complied with all aspects of grant agreements and other contractual agreements that would have a material effect on the financial statements in the event of noncompliance.

Sincerely,
Tori A. Hannah
Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Thomas Frutchey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: December 14, 2011
SUBJECT: Continuation of Appointment of Council Liaisons and Clarification of Role
CEQA: This Does not Constitute a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

RECOMMENDATION
Continue the practice of appointing Council liaisons to City boards and commissions and adopt guidelines for the performance of their role.

BACKGROUND
An effectively functioning Council requires, among other characteristics, the development and consistent practice of a series of norms: those standards of behavior, accepted and observed by all Councilmembers, that assist the Council in achieving the highest possible quality of decisions for the benefit of the community.

On October 29, the Council examined a large number of its norms in depth and requested staff return with those recommended changes generally agreed to (in no particular order):
™ An approach for updating the five-year work plan at least twice per year. ™ Processes for adding items for Council consideration that aren’t on the five-year work plan.
™ Adherence by each speaker to the accepted norms of dialogue and by all listeners to the norms of respecting and valuing divergent viewpoints, in order to create a positive, productive climate.
™ Guidelines for the assignment of work to staff.
™ Upgrading the process for ensuring Council direction to our representatives on regional bodies with respect to key issues.
™ Creating a uniform and productive role for Council liaisons or ending the role altogether.

In addition, since the October 29th session, issues have arisen concerning the following two norms that may warrant additional Council attention:
™ Applicability of the Brown Act to subcommittee meetings. ™ Councilmembers placing items on the agenda.

Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
1 Given that Council direction was also “to bifurcate whenever possible,” staff will bring these selected norms back to the Council for its deliberation as separate agenda items over the next few months. Given the amount of discussion already invested, the role of Council liaison is the first norm for full consideration by the Council.

DISCUSSION
The liaison provides a linkage between a board or commission and the Council. The Council liaison provides updates on Council actions, offers any needed background information on requests of the board made by the Council, and takes back to the Council any questions or updates. The liaison is charged to act on behalf of the full Council, rather than sharing personal views. The liaison is not a member of the board and does not make or second motions or vote, but is available to answer questions, as needed, about the Council’s intentions and needs.

The role of Council liaison was developed originally in response to violations of appropriate norms by members of one commission. The Council believed that active oversight was necessary for at least that commission, and appointed liaisons to all.

Over time, the role has evolved markedly. There is no current expectation that the liaison will provide any direct oversight. However, practices currently differ to some extent from commission to commission and from Councilmember to Councilmember. With some commissions, the liaison role is especially useful and productive. We have until now not provided explicit guidelines for the liaisons. Draft guidelines are attached (Attachment 1) Linkage and communication between the Council and each board is also facilitated by several other means, including:
™ the Council’s adoption each year of the board’s charter (a work in progress), and identification by the Council of those areas in which the Council seeks particular advice or attention;
™ staff support of both the Council and the board;
™ formal review and acceptance of board minutes by the Council; ™ semi-annual sessions hosted by the Council with all board chairs (the first such session being scheduled for January or February 2012); and
™ board preparation and Council acceptance of the board’s annual report.

In December, 2010, Western City included an article, “The Ethical Hazards of City Council Members Attending Other Board Meetings,” that detailed some of the challenges Councilmembers face in seeking to serve effectively in the role of liaison (Attachment 2).

OPTIONS

1. Continue with the liaison approach, but heighten situational awareness and ensure adherence to accepted guidelines (Attachment 1), so that the liaison does not risk either sending inappropriate messages or disqualifying himself or herself if and when the issue comes to Council.

Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
2 2. Delete the practice of having a Council liaison, and rely on the other means of achieving linkage and communication (above).

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Guidelines for Council Liaisons

2. Western City article regarding Councilmember attendance at commission meetings, December, 2010

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
__________________________
Thomas Frutchey
City Manager

Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
3 Guidelines for Council Liaisons
DO:
™ Receive the agenda packet in advance.
™ Attend regularly.
™ Observe and note proceedings that may deserve Council attention, and inform lead staff or the Council.
™ Seek ways the City can help the Commission be more effective, and inform lead staff or the Council.
™ Observe the effectiveness of individual commission members and the effectiveness of the mixture of backgrounds and perspectives on the commission. Use this information to inform the Mayor and Council regarding upcoming appointments. ™ Share, as appropriate, recent or upcoming actions of the Ciyt Concil having particular relevance to the commission.
™ Answer questions regarding recent Council actions.

DO NOT:
™ Speculate as to future Council actions
™ Share personal views as a Councilmember
™ Sit at the table or on the dais. (Instead, sit in the area reserved for members of the public.)
™ Participate in the discussion of a particular agenda item. Do not make motions, raise points of order, or vote. (Instead, offer information at the end of the agenda, under a separate agenda item, “Reports of Council Liaison.”)
™ Use facial expressions and other non-verbal cues to indicate personal views on a particular matter.

Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
Attachment 1
4 The Ethical Hazards of City Council
Members Attending Other Board
Meetings
by Michael Dean
Imagine this scenario: The planning commission is considering whether to recommend a zoning change to the city council, which would allow more residential use in the downtown area and promote the mixed-use vision in its General Plan. Wouldn’t any city council member want to know as much information as possible? Attending the planning commission meeting and listening to the perspectives of the city planner, engineer, architect, commission members and others might seem like a smart move. The council member may even be able to ask questions of the participants or give his or her views, thus learning about the issues and influencing the matter before it comes before the city council.

In fact, city council members can often be found in the audience of planning commission meetings, listening to the proceedings and occasionally participating.

However, this may not be such a good idea. As innocent as a council member’s motives may be, when he or she personally attends a planning commission meeting or another subordinate committee meeting, he or she may be crossing an ethical boundary. Council members do not violate any laws by attending commission meetings. However, they run the risk of:
• Potentially revealing a biased view, thereby causing their own disqualification should the matter at hand subsequently come before the council; • Interfering with the role of the commission as an independent advisory body; and • Not acting in accordance with the views of the city council as a whole.

Most city council members know to steer clear of the somewhat hazy legal boundaries that might cause them to be disqualified from the decision-making process due to bias.

Many if not most planning commission or other commission decisions are merely 1 Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
Attachment 2
5 advisory to or at least appealable to the city council. Because the right to due process is attached to many of these types of commission decisions, the participants in such proceedings have the right to an unbiased decision-maker at the city council level. A council member who comments at the commission meeting and indicates a firm position on a particular matter may be subjected to a challenge for bias when the same issue reaches the city council.

Related Ethical Challenges

Beyond the issue of perceived bias, participating in a commission meeting raises other ethical questions. For instance, council members generally have the authority to remove a commission member. With this power, a council member’s mere attendance at a meeting can be highly influential, especially when he or she makes his or her opinions known.

Merely indicating that one is not speaking for the entire council, but rather providing one’s own opinion, does not address the significant impact of the “boss” offering an opinion.

This influence may also jeopardize a significant role of the commission, which is to provide independent recommendations or decisions to the city council. After all, none of the cities’ commissions are required to exist; if the city council wants to have the role of decision-maker, it could take that role. But when a city establishes a commission, the city council has also by implication indicated its desire to have an independent body make decisions or recommendations. The presence of the appointing authority at the commission meetings affects that independence.

Likewise, in a council-manager form of government, the intent and expectation is that a city council will act as a whole, not as individuals. Council members normally receive the same information simultaneously from city staff or from their subordinate commissions or the public’s testimony. This allows the council members as a body to draw conclusions in a fair and balanced way based upon the same factual foundation.

City council members may undermine this expectation when they individually attend meetings of a subordinate commission. To some extent the council member who attends collects information that will not reach other council members in quite the same way.

Those council members who attend may also subtly influence either the outcome of the commission’s deliberations or how the matter will eventually be presented before the council — in ways not available to the council members who did not attend the commission meeting.

Of course, council members do not completely give up their rights as private citizens, and they are both free to and expected to gather information relevant to the performance of their duties. They are entitled to attend a commission’s public meeting. However, to remain firmly upright on the ethical tightrope, council members should wait until the commission makes its recommendation to the city council in its entirety — thus preserving the original intent of both the independent commission and the city council.

Alternatives to Attending in Person

2 Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
Attachment 2
6 This does not deprive council members of the ability to learn what occurs at a commission meeting. A city council member may listen to most meetings online, on television or by using the city clerk’s taped recordings. Information can also be obtained by reading the commission’s meeting minutes. A council member’s personal presence at or participation in a commission meeting, on the other hand, could reveal a biased view, disrupt the independence of the commission or exert undue influence on the commission, regardless of the council member’s intent. It is best avoided.

For More Information
Learn more about bias in the October 2006 “Everyday Ethics” column, “When an Elected Official Feels Passionately About an Issue: Fair Process Requirements in Adjudicative Decision-Making.” Michael Dean is a Sacramento-based principal and the ethics chair at the legal firm of Meyers Nave. Dean serves as city attorney for the City of Dixon and assistant city attorney for the cities of Colusa and Plymouth. He can be reached at [email protected]. This column is provided as ethics advice and is not intended as legal advice.

This article appears in the December 2010 issue of Western City 3 Regular Agenda Item No. 14b
Attachment 2
7 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL
December 14, 2011
Special Meeting began at 5:00 P.M. and Regular Meeting at 6:00 P.M.

Council Chambers – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

REVISED SPECIAL MEETING
5:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia, Councilmembers Kampe, Cohen, Cuneo, Fischer, and Miller in attendance.

Councilmember Huitt arrived at 5:05 p.m.

1. PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
None.

2. CLOSED SESSION
A. Liability Claim, Gov. Code § 54956.95; Claimant: John Purdom (Claim No. 2011113108); Agency Claimed Against: City of Pacific Grove B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, Gov. Code § 54956.9(a):

Name of case: Pacific Grove Police Officers’ Association et al. v. City of Pacific Grove et al., M109123
C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation, Gov. Code § 54956.9(a):

Name of case: Pacific Grove Police Officers’ Association et al. v. City of Pacific Grove et al., PERB No. SF-CE-769-M
D. Conference with Real Property Negotiators: Property: 1207 Shafter Ave, P.G.; City Negotiator: Thomas Frutchey, City Manager, and James L. Becklenberg, Deputy City Manager; Negotiating Party: Maureen Mason, Coldwell Banker Del Monte Realty; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms (Gov. Code § 54956.8)

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the closed session at 5:43 p.m. with all members present.

REGULAR MEETING
6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Garcia, Councilmembers Kampe, Cohen, Cuneo, Fischer, Huitt, and Miller in attendance.

Consent Agenda Item 6a
B. Continuation of Appointment of Council Liaisons and Clarification of Role Public Comment: None.

Action: Councilmember Fischer withdrew his motion.

Action: Upon motion of Councilmember Fischer and carried on a 6-0 vote, Council continued the practice of appointing Council liaisons to City boards and commissions for one year and asked the City Staff to prepare guidelines for the performance of their role to be considered at the January 18, 2012 City Council Meeting.

15. FULL PRESENTATIONS
None.

16. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 9:25 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Morrow, MMC
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ Consent Agenda Item 6a

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AGENDA REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
From: Thomas Frutchey, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 5, 2011
Subject: Adoption of Updated and Revised Board and Commission Member Handbook
CEQA:

This Action is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an updated and revised Board and Commission Member Handbook, including any desired additional changes, and direct staff to work with the Chairs of each board and commission to use the handbook as a training and development tool for all City boards and commissions.

DISCUSSION
The City’s boards and commissions serve in an indispensible role, advising the Council and making decisions in areas delegated to them by the Council.

Members of all boards and commissions are volunteers, with a variety of backgrounds. Many members may not have served previously on a board or commission in any arena, let alone the municipal arena.

As a result, many elements of their role are new and unfamiliar. Training for the members is indispensible in assisting them to shorten their learning curve, avoid mistakes, and be as effective as possible. A key element of the training program can be a handbook that serves as both an introductory training tool, as well as a reference source when new situations and issues arise.

The City last prepared such a Handbook in 2002 (Attachment 1). The current handbook includes updated and expanded contents from that earlier edition, using material developed by other cities and material unique to Pacific Grove.

Two new proposed elements include the Oath of Office, which until now has been taken by only employees and elected officials, and an ethics code, which would be signed by each member upon taking the Oath.

FISCAL IMPACT
Minimal costs for copying, staff support, and miscellaneous expenses. 1 Regular Agenda Item No.10.C

ATTACHMENTS

1. Commissioner Handbook—2002

2. Draft Board and Commission Member Handbook—2011

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
____________________

THOMAS FRUTCHEY
City Manager
2 Regular Agenda Item No.10.C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Board and Commission Members
Handbook
2011

Regular Agenda Item No.10.C
Attachment 2
o Investigation
o Disaster preparedness
o Animal control services
o Parking enforcement
™ Public Works
o Sewer Collection System
o Stormwater management (in partnership with other Peninsula agencies) o Street, sidewalk, curb, and gutter
o Street lighting (in partnership with Caltrans and PG&E) o Street sweeping (contract with Waste Management, Inc.) o El Carmelo Cemetery
o Tree and landscape maintenance
o Building and Grounds
o Encroachment Permitting
Descriptions of the primary programs and services within each function are included in Appendix G.

D. Interrelationships
Interrelationships between the commission and City Council, other commissions, staff, and the public are crucial for success.

City Council. There should be a two-way communication between the Council and each commission, so that the commissioners are aware of the short- and long-term goals that the Council has adopted, and the Council is receptive to new ideas that are presented by the commission. This communication is facilitated by several means, including:
™ the Council’s adoption each year of the commission’s charter, and identification by the Council of those areas in which the Council is seek particular advice or attention ™ appointment of a Council liaison for each commission; ™ staff support of both;
™ formal review and acceptance of commission minutes by the Council; and ™ periodic sessions hosted by the Council with all commission chairs.

The Council highly values the advice it receives from the commissions. However, it is likely that, at one time or another, the City Council will not take the advice of a commission, and a commissioner may want to ask, “If they won’t take our advice, why ask for it?” Since the Council delegates selected decision-making authority to certain commissions, most of those decisions can be appealed to the Council. In addition, three or more Councilmembers have the ability to call up a commission decision for reconsideration by the full Council. When this happens, the Council may not always accept the recommendations or agree with the decisions of a commission.

City of Pacific Grove -11- Rev. 12-19-10
Regular Agenda Item No.10.C
Attachment 2
Commission members should not be frustrated by this, or think that this in any way reduces the value of their contributions and their advisory role. The Council is not rejecting the quality of the commission’s work; instead, the Council may need to balance commission recommendations against other City priorities. The Council, by definition, must have a broader perspective than any single commission. If a recommendation is rejected, the Council Liaison and staff will help the commission by letting the commission know why.

Finding a comfortable relationship with all board members and others, when dealing with issues that can become politically charged, can be challenging. However, the following are guidelines for commissioners beginning to find their way around in the political environment:
™ Each commission member has an obligation to “vote his/her conscience” and will have to resolve conflicts he/she may have between a personal viewpoint and what is perceived as the ‘public interest.’
™ Neither the commission as a whole nor any member should ever willingly and openly embarrass someone else.
™ The commission should see as one of its primary roles that of developing public trust in the advisory commission system.
™ The commission should be sensitive to Council priorities and know when to not take a stand. There are times when, for the good of the overall City, our personal views need to take a back seat.
™ Should a controversy arise within the commission, counsel and guidance are available from the Council liaison, the City Attorney, and staff. ™ Should a split opinion exist on a commission action, the majority report is to be sent as the recommendation to the Council. This may include an explanation of the reason for any dissent.
™ It is unethical for an individual commissioner to attempt to influence or persuade the Council to make a decision that may be in opposition to the commission’s position as a whole. Once the majority of the commission quorum makes a decision, it becomes the decision of the entire commission.

No board or commission is expected to perform in a vacuum. Each board is assigned a Council liaison and staff to assist it in achieving its goals.

Council Liaison. The Mayor appoints a Council liaison for each board and commission. The liaison is not a member of the board, and does not make or second motions or vote, but answers questions, as needed, about the Council’s intentions and needs.

The Council liaison acts as an advisor and observer, providing updates on Council actions, providing any needed background information on requests of the board made by the Council, and taking back to the Council any needed questions or updates. The liaison acts on behalf of the full Council, rather than sharing personal views
Other Commissions. The areas of interest of most City commissions are distinct and without significant overlap. As a result, a single issue or opportunity is not likely to be addressed by City of Pacific Grove -12- Rev. 12-19-10
Regular Agenda Item No.10.C
Attachment 2