Agenda packet, regular meeting — Pacific Grove City Council, February 16, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.

Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
888 788 0099 US (Toll-free)
877 853 5247 US (Toll-free)
669 900 9128
669 219 2599
Webinar ID: 209 579 290#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

Help Line 831-648-3128

MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
The public may also view the meeting on the Peninsula Channel 25.

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
PG CC 2/16/22
1 of 470
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Amelio

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Boards, Committees, and Commissions Certificates
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Present certificates.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session
B. Other

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council.

Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.

CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business

A. Minutes of the January 19, 2022, City Council Special and Regular Meetings Reference: Kerry Lindstrom, Deputy City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines PG CC 2/16/22
2 of 470
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the February 2, 2022 Special and Regular Meeting Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

A. CalRecycle Grant Resolution
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution authorizing submittal of grant applications to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for grants the City may be eligible for independently or as part of a regional application in which Monterey Regional Waste Management District or another member City serves as lead.

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

7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings

A. Ordinance to Amend PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 23.80 of the PGMC pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

A. Second Quarter Capital Improvement Budget Report
Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Check Register Report – January 2022
PG CC 2/16/22
3 of 470
Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Core Revenue Report Status for January 2022
Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the Core Revenue Status Report for January 2022.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business

A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions
Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action: Receive report of emergency directives/modifications.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Contract Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Proposed Contract Amendment and Reimbursement Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. based on the Scope of Work and Cost Estimate provided for preparation of a revised Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) relating to a development project located at 1661 Sunset Drive.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Thomas Horvath Appointment to Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointment of Thomas Horvath to Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel for a term ending January 31, 2024.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business

A. Architectural Review Board Minutes: October 12, 2021 Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
PG CC 2/16/22
4 of 470
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: November 4 and December 9, 2021 Meetings Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
Recommended Action: Receive minutes
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter. Public hearings on non-controversial matters or for which testimony is not anticipated may be placed on the Consent Agenda, but shall be removed if any person requests a staff presentation or wishes to be heard on the matter.

A. Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way on Sloat Avenue Pursuant to §§ 8300-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code
Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
Recommended Action: Hold a public hearing and approve a resolution conditionally authorizing the vacation of excess right-of-way (ROW) for a portion of Sloat Avenue pursuant to Sections 8830-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
B. State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Application Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Senior Housing Program Manager Recommended Action:

Conduct a Public Hearing on the State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to solicit public input on possible competitive and over the counter activities to be included in the application, and

1. Approve Housing staff to submit an application and resolution approving a funding application and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments to the State CDBG Program.

2. CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Amendment to AP/UP 16-203 previously-approved AP/UP 16-203 (Council Resolution No. 18-030; September 5, 2018)
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
PG CC 2/16/22
5 of 470
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve Amendment (No. 21-0457) to the previously-approved AP/UP 16-203 (Council Resolution No. 18-030; September 5, 2018). The proposed Amendment is in substantial conformance with the original project, which demonstrated consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
D. City Council Salary and Health Benefits This item was pulled from the 9/15 agenda and continued to a future meeting once all information is received.

Reference: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem and Amy Tomlinson, Councilmember Recommended Action: Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to (1) amend the salary classification schedule to modify salary ranges for City Council Member and Mayor and (2) direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

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

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 This item was continued from the January 19, 2021 meeting.

Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Recommended Action:

Receive the Annual Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which includes the Auditor's Opinion on the City's financial statements, from the City's independent auditor, Chavan & Associates, LLP
Receive the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund (TAMC Measure X) Report, which includes the Auditor's Report by the City's independent auditor, Chavan & Associates, LLP
Receive a status on improvements based on the auditor's recommendations that are being implemented, and provide any desired direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Cannabis Outreach Subcommittee Update
Reference: Joe Amelio, Luke Coletti, and Chaps Poduri, Councilmembers Recommended Action: Receive report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Special Events Calendar for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Reference: Katie Clark, Recreation Manager
Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Special Event Calendar for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

PG CC 2/16/22
6 of 470
Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Special Event Calendar for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.

2. Approve 13 proposed special events as City Sponsored Events and waive fees for City Staff support and facility/equipment use.

3. Approve 9 proposed special events as Full Cost Recovery Events and do not approve the Legends of Autobahn event.

4. Return with Legends of Autobahn details after they have been developed and approved by staff to seek Council approval per the Recreation Board Recommendations.

5. Allow municipal code exceptions for the designated events to allow pets in the parks

6. Do not approve the Feast of Lanterns and the 5 additional events associated with the Feast. Event organizers shall begin discussions with community stakeholders, the DEI Task Force and others with the goal of bringing back a revised event for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 that reflects changes to address concerns and critiques expressed by the public, stakeholder groups, and a City advisory board regarding the event.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Local Water Project Business Plan Peer Review
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager; Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager Recommended Action: Receive the Peer Review of Pacific Grove Local Water Project Business Plan prepared by DTA, validating the City’s assumptions noted in the Business Plan, and authorize staff to being negotiations with CourseCo; and approve a loan repayment plan for the Sewer Fund Interfund Loan.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
E. Hybrid Meeting Update
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve staff recommendation to commence hybrid meetings by phases as outlined in the Discussion section of agenda report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
F. Financial Report Subcommittee
Reference: Chaps Poduri, Councilmember and Bill Peake, Mayor Recommended Action: Direct staff to implement Financial Report Subcommittee recommendations listed below.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
G. Monarch Resort Homekey Project
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Direct City Manager to begin public outreach on the Monarch Resort Homekey project no later than March 16, 2022.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PG CC 2/16/22
7 of 470

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation Project – Ocean View Blvd Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action: Authorize an agreement with Monterey Peninsula Engineering for the FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation Project on Ocean View Blvd in an amount not to exceed $1,145,323 plus a 15% contingency.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities B. City of Pacific Grove Youth Commission
Reference: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem
Recommended Action: Direct the City Manager to return with a draft ordinance and resolution to form a Youth Commission.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Removal of Library Fines and Forgiveness of Current Outstanding Overdue Fines Reference: Jenny McAdams,
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide direction as to removal of library fines and forgiveness of current outstanding overdue fines. Direct the City Manager to return with a resolution and amendment to the Master Fee Schedule.

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.

PG CC 2/16/22
8 of 470
Agenda No. 2 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Boards, Committees, and Commissions Certificates CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Present certificates.

Attachments
Certificates
PG CC 2/16/22
9 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
10 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
11 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
12 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
13 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
14 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
15 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
16 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
17 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
18 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
19 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
20 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
21 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
22 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
23 of 470
Agenda No. 5 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Minutes of the January 19, 2022, City Council Special and Regular Meetings CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes
PG CC 2/16/22
24 of 470

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
877 853 5247 (Toll Free)
888 788 0099 (Toll Free)
669 900 9128
699-219-2599
Webinar Meeting ID: 692 219 855#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 pm. Deputy City Clerk Lindstrom conducted roll call with the following Council present via Zoom: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

APPROVAL OF

AGENDACLOSED

SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment was received.

A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Mayor Bill Peake
Employee: City Manager Ben Harvey
PG CC 2/16/22
25 of 470

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Deputy City Clerk conducted roll call with the following Council present via Zoom webinar: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, and Tomlinson. Mayor Pro Tem McAdams arrived approximately at 6:05 pm and Councilmember Smith arrived approximately 6:45 pm. Mayor Pro Tem McAdams left the meeting at approximately 8:15 pm.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Tomlinson

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Mayor Peake recommended moving item 13G to Ongoing Business item 12A Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, the Council approved the agenda as amended.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, and Tomlinson.

PG CC 2/16/22
26 of 470
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Smith

2. PRESENTATIONS

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by Mayor Peake:

Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Mayor Bill Peake
Employee: City Manager Ben Harvey
Mayor Peake reported, upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember Amelio with a 5-2 vote, Mayor Peake and Councilmember Coletti voting no, Council voted to approve the City Manager temporary telecommuting agreement from December 20, 2021 to February 18, 2022.

B. Council and Staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Barbara Mitchell, Jenny MacMurdo, Phuong Nguyen, Anthony Ciani, David Kong, Rebecca Lee, Janet Cohen, Gloria Dan Yuk-siu Ipson, Anne Oda, Sue Parris, Kim, Lisa Ciani, Carmelita Garcia, Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 5B was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12C.

Action: Consent Agenda item 6A was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 13A.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council approved the Consent Agenda as amended.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the December 15, 2021 City Council Regular and Special Meetings Action: Approved minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Minutes of the January 12, 2022 City Council Special Meeting This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda Item 12C.

Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.

PG CC 2/16/22
27 of 470
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Application for State Project HOMEKEY Round 2 Funding This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 13A.

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Program Manager
Recommended Action:

1. Adopt a Resolution with the City as the lead applicant and SLI as the co-applicant, authorizing the submittal of an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the amount not to exceed $15,000,000 for the conversion of the Monarch Resort into a Homekey project.

2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute a MOU with Shangri-La Industries memorializing roles and responsibilities.

3. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute agreement(s) and/ or implementing documents with Shangri La Industries and Step Up Second Street, Inc. to effectuate the implementation of a Homekey project in the City of Pacific Grove.

4. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute funding agreement and other implementing documents with the State of California Department of Housing Community Development.

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15268, Ministerial Projects

7. ORDINANCES
A. Ordinance to Amend the City Salary Classification Schedule - Adding IT Support Specialist
Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance 22-001 to amend the salary classification schedule to add a salary for Information Technology Specialist and approve the amendment.

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

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Monterey Salinas Transit Minutes of November 15, 2021 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Check Register Report – December 2021
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Core Revenue Report Status for December 2021
Action: Received the Core Revenue Status Report for December 2021.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PG CC 2/16/22
28 of 470
D. City Council Goals and Tactics - Update
Action: Received the report.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions
Action: Received report of emergency directives/modifications.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Appointments to City Boards, Committees and Commissions Action: Approved appointments to City Boards, Committees, and Commissions.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Beautification and Natural Resource Commission Meeting Minutes: October 19, 2021 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Economic Development Commission Meeting Minutes: November 4, 2021 Action: Received minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: 11-8-21 Action: Received minutes.

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

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tree Appeal 718 Sunset Drive
Mayor Peake opened the public hearing and defined it as a Quasi-Judicial Hearing.

Councilmember Coletti reported ex parte communication, visiting 718 Sunset Drive and was given the opportunity to look at the tree. Councilmembers Poduri, Amelio, Smith, and Tomlinson also visited the site and had discussions with the applicant.

Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Daniel Gho presented to Council.

PG CC 2/16/22
29 of 470
Appellant Moe Ammar was allowed 15 minutes to present to Council.

Public comment was received from Ali Ammar, Anthony Ciani, Rebecca Lee, Nathan, Lisa Ciani, Abraham Ammar, and Bill Bluhm.

Appellant Moe Ammar was allowed the remainder of his 15 minutes to present to Council.

Mayor Peake closed the public hearing.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember McAdams, Council held a de novo public hearing for tree removal permit application 21-104, approved tree removal permit application 21-104 allowing the removal of the Monterey Pine supported by findings of high-risk criteria and safety risk, overturning the decision of the City Arborist and the Beautification and Natural ResourcesCommission (BNRC) for tree removal permit application 21-104 denying the removal of one Monterey Pine at 718 Sunset Drive, and provided direction to Public Works to plant two replacement 24-inch box trees.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Elizabeth Hull Legal Services for ATC Project This item was pulled from the Regular Agenda
Public comment received from Anthony Ciani, Lisa Ciani, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council approved payment not to exceed $80,000 to Best Best & Krieger LLP for Elizabeth Hull legal services related to development/commercial real estate of the ATC Hotel and Commercial Project also including in the contract the ATC scope with an end date of July 2022 and discussed financial controls for Council approved item that do not have stated expenditure limits.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

PG CC 2/16/22
30 of 470
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Public Works Warehouse and Office Building Fire Replacement and Repair Public comment received from Anthony Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council authorized an agreement with Jacob Construction & Design not to exceed $485,643 plus a 15% contingency for the replacement of the metal building and repairs to the administration office at the Public Works Corporation Yard.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities.

C. Minutes of the January 12, 2022 City Council Special Meeting This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda.

Public comment received from Anthony Ciani and Lisa Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and Seconded by Mayor Peake, Council approved the minutes.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Application for State Project HOMEKEY Round 2 Funding This item was from the Consent Agenda
Public comment was received from Roxane Wilson, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Tod Lipka Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and
seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council:

1. Adopted Resolutions 22-004 and 22-005 with the City as the lead applicant and SLI as the co-applicant, authorizing the submittal of an application to the California PG CC 2/16/22
31 of 470
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the amount not to exceed $15,000,000 for the conversion of the Monarch Resort into a Homekey project.

2. Authorized the City Manager to execute a MOU with Shangri-La Industries memorializing roles and responsibilities.

3. Authorized the City Manager to execute agreement(s) and/ or implementing documents with Shangri La Industries and Step Up Second Street, Inc. toeffectuate the implementation of a Homekey project in the City of Pacific Grove.

4. Authorized the City Manager to execute funding agreement and other implementing documents with the State of California Department of Housing Community Development.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams
CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15268, Ministerial Projects B. Status of the City's MPWMD Water Allocation, Water Entitlement and City's Water Wait List Architectural Permits
Public comment was received from Hannah Bell, Anthony Ciani, Bill Bluhm, Kirstie Wilde, and Andy Miller.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to implement a 90-day moratorium and return with an ordinance that adopts option 2C with a 5-year extension and another 5-year extension, the non-conformance catch up would apply, refunds would be granted for the 11 people that paid for the extensions, approximately $10,000, amount per owner to be indicated in the ordinance and stop adding to the water wait list.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Smith, Council voted to adjourn the meeting.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson
PG CC 2/16/22
32 of 470
NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams
C. Promissory Agreement for Payment of Water Entitlement for the PG Hotel, formerly known as the Hotel Durrell This item was continued to February 2, 2022.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: 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)
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 This item was continued to February 2, 2022.

Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Recommended Action:

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. CONCEPT REVIEW: ARPA Funding Public Outreach This item was continued to February 2, 2022 This item was continued to February 2, 2022.

Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action: Review proposed public outreach approach and provide direction to staff.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
F. Leadership - Mastering Your Role as an Elected Official This item was continued to February 2, 2022.

Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive report and discuss.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
G. Council Liaison Role This item was continued to February 2, 2022.

Reference: Nick Smith, Councilmember
Recommended Action: Review role and provide staff direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act PG CC
Guidelines
2/16/22
33 of 470
Section 15378
H. Elizabeth Hull Legal Services for ATC Project This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12A.

Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action:

1. Approve payment not exceeding $100,000 to Best Best & Krieger LLP for Elizabeth Hull legal services related to development/commercial real estate of the ATC Hotel and Commercial Project.

2. Discuss financial controls for Council approved items that do not have stated expenditure limits.

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at approximately 9:57 pm Respectfully Submitted,
Kerry Lindstrom
Deputy City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ PG CC 2/16/22
34 of 470
Agenda No. 5 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 2, 2022 Special and Regular Meeting CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.

Attachments
Draft Minutes
PG CC 2/16/22
35 of 470

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 2, 2022, 5:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S

EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present via Zoom Meeting: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, and Tomlinson. Councilmember Smith was absent from this meeting.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, the Council approved the agenda.

Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, , Poduri, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Smith.

CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment was received.

A. Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Ben Harvey, City Manager, Tori Hannah, Assistant City Manager/AdministrativeServices Director, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Donna Williams, Liebert CassidyWhitmore, LLP
Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
36 of 470

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

AMENDED REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 2, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD VIRTUALLY AND IS COMPLIANT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS ALLOWING FOR A DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT.

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present via Zoom Webinar: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri and Tomlinson. Mayor Pro Tem Smith joined the webinar meeting at 6:18 p.m.

A. Remote Teleconference - AB 361
Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Peake and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council ratified Resolution No. 21-029 Emergency Teleconferencing authorizing remote teleconference meetings of all City legislative bodies for the following 30 days in accord with the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
37 of 470

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Peake led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by May Pro Tem McAdams, the Council approved the agenda.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation Recognizing Moe Ammar's 29 Years of Service on the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce. Joe Shammas spoke on behalf of the Chamber
Action: Council received the proclamation.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6) City Negotiators: Ben Harvey, City Manager, Tori Hannah, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director, Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director, and Donna Williams, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, LLP
Employee Organization: Police Officers Association
City Attorney Dave Laredo reported staff provided background information, Council posed questions and identified topics for which future investigation will need to be reported back to Council. No action was taken other than to continue the discussion to a future unspecified date.

B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Joe Shammas, Lisa Ciani, Rebecca Lee, Kimberly Brown, and Carmelita Garcia.

CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8C was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12A.

Consent Agenda item 6B was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12B.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
38 of 470
Tomlinson, Council approved the Consent Agenda as amended.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County of Monterey Relating to the Mission Linen Property Annexation Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-006 and directed staff to submit to the Monterey County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in support of the City's applicationto annex the Mission Linen property located at 801 Sunset Drive.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. City Manager Performance Evaluation Policy 000-27 This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12B.

Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution to create City Manager Performance Evaluation Policy 000-27.

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

7. ORDINANCES

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. Second Quarter Treasurer’s Quarterly Report – Fiscal Year 2021-22 Action: Received the Report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Second Quarter Budget Report
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Second Quarter Workers' Compensation Report This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12A.

Reference: Audrey Cray, Management Analyst
Action: Receive the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
39 of 470
D. Second Quarter Purchase Order Report
Action: Received the Second Quarter Purchase Order Report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Minutes of December 8, 2021 and January 5, 2022
Action: Received minutes.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. Monterey Regional Waste Management District Appointment Action: Approved appointment of Mayor Peake to Monterey Regional Waste Management District Joint Powers Authority (MRWMD) Board of Directors serving until December 31, 2022.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Mary Ann Whitten Appointment to Library Board
Action: Approved appointment of Mary Ann Whitten to Library Board for a term ending January 31, 2026.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. September Recreation Board Minutes
Action: Received September 2021 Recreation Board Meeting Minutes CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

REGULAR AGENDA

11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. DRAFT Adoption of a Resolution Conditionally Authorizing the Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way Located on Sloat Ave. This public hearing will be opened, public comment shall begin at the February 2, 2022, City Council meeting, but the hearing will then be continued to the February 16, 2022 City Council meeting; the public hearing shall remain open -- but NOTE -- individual members of the public may choose to speak either at the February 2, 2022 meeting or the February 16, 2022 meeting, but no person shall be allowed to speak at more than one hearing date.

No public comment was received.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Mayor Peake, Council opened the public hearing and continued the item to the February 16, 2022, meeting.

Motion carried 6-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
40 of 470
Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: Councilmember Coletti
ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
B. Approval of Amendments to PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Rebecca Lee, and Anthony Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Amelio , Council held first reading of an ordinance to amend PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as recommended by the Planning Commission and directed publication of a summary as approved by the City Attorney.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Second Quarter Workers' Compensation Report This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda.

No public comment was received.

Action: Council received the report.

Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani and Anthony Ciani.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Council adopted Resolution No. 22-007 to create City Manager Performance Evaluation Policy 000-27.

Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
41 of 470
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Promissory Agreement for Payment of Water Entitlement for the PG Hotel, formerly known as the Hotel Durrell This item was continued from the January 19, 2022 meeting.

Public comment was received from Bob Leach, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Rebecca Lee.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, to 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) – the motion was replaced with a substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, to 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) with four conditions 1) confirm the relative percentages of the collective parties, 2) execute the note in 90 days, 3) the 10% payment will be earmarked for repayment of the sewer fund, and 4) include a term of 48 months – the motion was replaced with a substitute motion by Councilmember Amelio.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio to 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) with one condition: confirm the relative percentages of the collective parties – the motion died for lack of a second.

Action: Upon amended motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Mayor Peake, Council approved 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) with two conditions 1) confirm the relative percentages of the collective parties, and 2) the note is due and payable if and when the building permit should lapse.

Motion carried 4-3, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Councilmembers, Coletti, and Tomlinson.

NOES: Councilmembers Amelio, Poduri, and Smith.

ABSENT: None.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. CONCEPT REVIEW: ARPA Funding Public Outreach This item was continued from the January 19, 2022 meeting.

Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Lisa Ciani.

DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
42 of 470
Action: Council reviewed proposed public outreach approach and provided direction to staff.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Leadership - Mastering Your Role as an Elected Official This item was continued fromthe January 19, 2022 meeting.

Public comment was received from Andrew Gonzalez.

Action: Council received the report and discussed the item.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Council Liaison Role This item was continued from the January 19, 2022 meeting.

Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Council received report with no action taken.

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

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at approximately 10:04 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ DRAFT PG CC 2/16/22
43 of 470
Agenda No. 6 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: CalRecycle Grant Resolution
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing submittal of grant applications to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for grants the City may be eligible for independently or as part of a regional application in which Monterey Regional Waste Management District or another member City serves as lead.

DISCUSSION
Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorizes the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs for qualifying jurisdictions. Grant Programs provided by CalRecycle include Beverage Container Recycling Grants, Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Grants, Solid Waste Disposal and Site Cleanup Grants, among others.

The City Council approved Resolution 16-044, in July of 2016, which authorized staff to submit application(s) on behalf of the City to CalRecycle for all eligible grants. The resolution authorized grant submittal for a term of 5 years from the approval date, which has now lapsed.

The City is required to adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of grant applications, in order to be eligible for competitive grant funding. Staff is also requesting that the resolution include language that states applications on behalf of the City may be submitted as part of a regional application in which Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) or another member City serves as lead.

This language allows for the City to be included in additional grant opportunities that benefit the City and region.

Recently CalRecycle decided to make funds available through a block grant titled “SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant Program (FY 21-22).” This is a non-competitive grant with a short deadline and the City of Pacific Grove is eligible to receive $21,398 based upon population. The funding was made available to help with various aspects of the law. The District has offered to act as a consultant and submit the application for its member jurisdictions. Funds would then be remitted to MRWMD to coordinate projects to help ensure the City complies with all aspects of SB 1383 with efficiency and consistency.

PG CC 2/16/22
44 of 470
The SB 1383 Local Assistance Grant program is designed to assist local jurisdictions with implementation of regulations requirements associated with SB 1383, such as capacity planning, collection, edible food recovery, outreach, enforcement and other various items associated with 1383.

OPTIONS
Do not approve the resolution.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact by approving this Resolution. If the Resolution is not adopted, the City will be ineligible to receive competitive grant funds from CalRecycle, including the Local Assistance Grant Program. To continue to be eligible for the Local Assistance Grant Program this resolution needs to be submitted to the State by March 1, 2022.

All agreements will be presented to the City Council for final approval prior to execution by the City.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Environmental Stewardship: Adopt and develop policies and ordinances that preserve and protect the environment.

Attachments
Resolution Cal Recycle
PG CC 2/16/22
45 of 470
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION(S) FOR ALL CALRECYCLE

GRANTS FOR WHICH CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE IS ELIGIBLE

FINDINGS

1. Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq. authorize the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to administer various grant programs (grants) in furtherance of the State of California's (state) efforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste generated in the state thereby preserving landfill capacity and protecting public health and safetyand the environment; and

2. In furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the application, awarding, and management of the grants; and

3. CalRecycle grant application procedures require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of CalRecycle grants.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The City of Pacific Grove is authorized to submit application(s) to CalRecycle for all grants for which the City of Pacific Grove is eligible or as part of a regional application in which Monterey Regional Waste Management District or another member City serves as lead.

2. The City Manager, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Pacific Grove all grant documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments and requests for payment, necessary to secure grant funds and implement the approved grant project; and

3. These authorizations are effective for five (5) years from the date of adoption of this resolution; and

4. This Resolution shall take immediate effect upon its passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 16th day of February 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

PG CC 2/16/22
46 of 470
NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_________________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PG CC 2/16/22
47 of 470
Agenda No. 7 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Ordinance to Amend PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 23.80 of the PGMC pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

DISCUSSION
No substantive changes were made between the first and second readings. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published February 10, 2022.

At its meeting on February 2, 2022, the City Council received a recommendation from the Planning Commission on proposed amendments to the City's ADU Ordinance, Chapter 23.80. The amendments are intended to ensure the City's compliance with state housing laws as they pertain to the development of ADUs and Jr. ADUs.

OPTIONS
The Council could opt not to adopt the amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

This action will have no financial impact on the City's general fund.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Increase Affordable Housing: Determine policies, projects and programs that will advance the effort to create new affordable housing in the City.

Attachments
Draft Ord
PG CC 2/16/22
48 of 470
ORDINANCE NO. 22-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AMENDING CHAPTER 23.80 OF THE PACIFIC

GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are a form of housing in the state of California and in the City of Pacific Grove (City); and
WHEREAS, the City has regulated ADUs since 1983 as set forth in Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.80; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, in response to State law, the City Council amended Chapter 23.80 to reduce barriers, streamline approval, and further accommodate the development of ADUs; and
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature brought forward several bills in 2019 relating to the planning and permitting of ADUs and JADUs; and WHEREAS, in October 2019, Governor Newsom signed numerous housing bills related to the development and regulation of ADUs and JADUs, which requires the City to make certain additional amendments to PGMC Chapter 23.80; and WHEREAS, in 2020, in response to State law, the City Council further amended Chapter 23.80 to reduce barriers, streamline approval, and further accommodate the development of ADUs; and
WHEREAS, the new standards will facilitate the development of ADUs and JADUs within the City, and are necessary for maintaining orderly growth and development patterns; and
WHEREAS, additional new state laws took effect in December 2021 which continue to contain a clause providing that a local government's ordinance that does not comply with all provisions of the State law shall become null and void; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is appropriate to further amend PGMC Chapter 23.80 again to comply with State law and to provide a more streamlined process for the development of ADUs and JADUs in an effort to provide additional affordable housing opportunities; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in the Monterey County Weekly on October 20, 2021, posted at City Hall by October 22, 2021; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends PGMC Section 23.80, entitled "Accessory Dwelling Units"; and
PG CC 2/16/22
49 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
50 of 470
WHEREAS, in the enactment of this Ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, amendment of PGMC Section 23.80 pertaining to ADUs is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15282(h) of the CEQA Guidelines as it implements Government Code Sections 65852.1 and 65852.2 as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources Code.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth fully herein.

SECTION 2. Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 23.80 shall be amended by deletion of all text shown in strikeout text (strikeout text) and the addition of all text shown in bold, italic, underscored text (bold, italic, underscored text), as follows:

Chapter 23.80

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Sections:

23.80.010 Purpose and intent.

23.80.020 Effect of nonconforming.

23.80.030 Definitions.

23.80.040 Approvals.

23.80.050 General ADU and JADU requirements.

23.80.060 Specific ADU and JADU requirements.

23.80.070 Fees and charges.

23.80.080 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.

23.80.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this chapter is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, as may be amended.

23.80.020 Effect of nonconforming.

An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this chapter will not be:
(a) Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
(b) Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.

PG CC 2/16/22
51 of 470
(c) Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(d) Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in PGMC

23.80.030. This does not prevent the city from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

23.80.030 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, terms are defined as follows:
“Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, and connection to utilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence or multi-family residences and may include. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(1) An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code, as may be amended;
(2) A manufactured home, as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
(1) Detached: the unit is separated from the primary structure or structures. (2) Attached: the unit is attached to the primary structure. (3) Converted Existing Space: space (e.g. bedroom, attached garage, storage area, or an accessory structure) on the lot of primary residence(s) that is converted into an independent living unit.
(4) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A specific type of conversion of existing space that is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family residence.
(5) Manufactured Home.
(6) Efficiency Unit.
“Accessory structure” means a building or structure that is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot.

PG CC 2/16/22
52 of 470
“Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
“Efficiency kitchen Unit” means a kitchen unit that includes each of the following:
(1) A cooking facility with appliances Compliance with Section 17958.1 Health & Safety Code, as may be amended;
(2) A food preparation counter or counters that are adequate for the size of the unit; and
(3) Food storage cabinets that are adequate for the size of the unit. “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that:
(1) Is no more than 500 square feet in size;
(2) Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure; (3) Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure; and (4) Includes an efficiency kitchen unit, as defined in this chapter. “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. “Manufactured Home” means a unit as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
“Ministerial approval” means approval related to a building permit that does not require discretionary action or a hearing.
“Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
“Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, any a fixed-route (bus stop or other transit stop) with transportation that charges set fees, runs on fixed routes, and is available to the public.

PG CC 2/16/22
53 of 470
“Tandem parking” means that two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

23.80.040 Approvals.

The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:
(a) Building Permit Only Ministerial Approval. If an ADU or JADU An ADU or JADU which complies with each of the general requirements in PGMC

23.80.050, it is allowed with only a building permit and shall not require discretionary planning approval. The ADU/JADU project shall be reviewed in a ministerial and administrative manner, limited to only considering the project’s compliance with the applicable objective standards. (1) Converted on Single-Family Lot. Only one One ADU and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. on it, where the ADU or JADU:
(A) Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion is limited to accommodating ingress and egress;
(B) Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family dwelling; and
(C) Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
(2) Converted on a Single-Family Lot:
(A) Created within the existing space of an accessory structure. (B) Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building codes.
(C) An ADU created within an existing accessory structure may expand an additional 150 sq. ft. if expansion is limited to accommodating ingress and egress only.
(3) Attached ADU on Single-Family Lot:
(A)Shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of proposed or existing building, or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater.

PG CC 2/16/22
54 of 470
(B) Setbacks same as (2)(B) above.
(24) Limited Detached on Single-Family Lot. One detached, new-construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in addition to any JADU that might otherwise be established on the lot under subsection (a)(1) of this section), if the detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
(A) The side and rear yard setbacks are at least three (3) feet; (B) The total maximum floor area is up to 1,000 1,200 square feet; and (C) The peak height above grade is 16 feet or less.
(35) Converted on Multifamily Lot. Multiple ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. At least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, or up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units may each have a converted ADU under this subsection. (46) Limited Detached on Multi-family Lot. No more than two detached ADUs on a lot that has an existing multifamily dwelling if each detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
(A) The side and rear yard setbacks are at least three feet (corner and exterior setbacks for the zoning district apply); and
(B) The total floor area is 800 square feet or smaller. (7) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU):
(A)Constructed entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure.
(B)Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure. (C)Includes an efficiency unit as defined in this chapter (b) Process and Timing.

PG CC 2/16/22
55 of 470
(1) An ADU or JADU permit is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if it meets the minimum standards above.
(2) The City must act on an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed application, unless either:
(A) The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay; or
(B) In the case of a JADU and the application to create a JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the City may delay acting on the permit application for the JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling, but the application to create the JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.

23.80.050 General ADU and JADU requirements.

The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under PGMC 23.80.040(a):
(a) Zoning. An ADU or JADU subject only to a building permit under PGMC

23.80.040(a) may be created on a lot in any zone that allows residential uses. (b) Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.
(c) Rental Term. An ADU or JADU may be rented under the following conditions:
(1) No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is less than 30 days; and
(2) JADU – owner must reside in either the primary residence or the JADU per Government Code 65852.22, Subd. (a)(2), as may be amended.
(d) No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but No ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot) unless allowed by Gov. Code, § 65852.26 (Qualified nonprofit corporation conveyance).
(e) Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site water-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed PG CC 2/16/22
56 of 470
within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(f) Each ADU or JADU shall have a separate address from the single or multifamily dwelling on the property. (g) Each ADU or JADU shall have a separate exterior access independent of the existing or proposed single or multi-family dwelling.

23.80.060 Specific ADU and JADU requirements.
(a) Size.
(1) The total maximum floor area is may be up to 1,000 1,200 square feet. (2) The minimum size is 150 square feet to include efficiency unit. ADUs that meet these requirements shall be approved ministerially. (3) An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling, but may not exceed the size in subsection (a)(1) of this section A JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet.
(b) Height.
(1) A single-story, attached or detached ADU may not exceed 16 feet in height above grade, measured to the peak of the structure. (2) A second story or two-story attached ADU addition may be permitted subject to an architectural permit and may not exceed the height of the zoning district.
(c) Passageway. No passageway, as defined in PGMC 23.80.030, is required for an ADU.
(d) Parking.
(1) Generally. Off-street parking is not required for an ADU or JADU located less than within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. If a property is not within one-half mile walking distance to a transit stop, one off-street parking space shall be provided and may be located in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined in PGMC 23.80.030.
(2) No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

PG CC 2/16/22
57 of 470
(3) No parking is required for a JADU.
(e) Architectural Requirements.
(1) Where the development of an ADU includes exterior alterations, additions, or construction of new structure, the ADU shall may, where feasible, incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials, including window style and materials, and roof slopes as the main dwelling unit or dwellings located on the subject property. adjacent properties. (f) Landscape Requirements. The site plan shall provide open space and landscaping that are useful for both the ADU and the principal single-family dwelling. Landscaping shall provide for the privacy and screening of adjacent properties.
(gf ) Historical Protections. Historic review shall be required for properties listed on the California Register of Historic Resources.
(g) Tree Removal and Pruning. Tree permits for the removal and/or pruning of permit trees shall be required per PGMC Title 12, but shall in no way prohibit the development of a minimum 800 sq. ft. ADU.
(1) Applicants are encouraged to locate and design ADU and/or JADU additions so that the retention of native trees (Gowen cypress, Coast live oak, Monterey cypress, Shore pine, Torrey pine, and Monterey pine) can be accommodated whenever possible.
(2) All trees in or within 100 yards of designated Monarch sanctuaries. (Pruning and removal of trees within the Monarch sanctuaries is prohibited between October 1 and May 1).
(3) A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) may be required for tree removal in the Coastal zone.

23.80.070 Fees and charges.
(a) Impact Fees.
(1) No impact fee is required for an ADU or JADU that is less than 750 square feet in size.
(2) Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750 square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the primary dwelling, PG CC 2/16/22
58 of 470
divided by the floor area of the ADU, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.
(b) Utility Fees. Converted ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot, created under PGMC 23.80.040(a)(1), are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility. Nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required unless the ADU or JADU is constructed with a new single-family home.

23.80.080 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.

Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards set forth in this chapter may be allowed by the city with a use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.

SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following passage and adoption hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS 16th day of February, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
______________________
PG CC 2/16/22
59 of 470
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED: ______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PG CC 2/16/22
60 of 470
Agenda No. 8 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Second Quarter Capital Improvement Budget Report CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report.

DISCUSSION
In Fiscal Year 19/20, the City added capital improvement budgetary updates to the Quarterly Budget Report. In response to recommendations received from the Council Finance Reporting Subcommittee, this information will now be presented in a separate report. This document will be produced on the same cycle as the City’s other quarterly financial reports.

The attached report provides information on the Amended Budgets for each capital improvement project. This information is presented by fund and includes the year-to-date expenditures and project balances. At the close of the second quarter, 32% of all budgeted funds have been expended.

Additional enhancements to this report may take place in the new fiscal year.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact associated with receiving this report.

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

Attachments
CIP Report
PG CC 2/16/22
61 of 470
Project Fund Account Project Name Total Budget Expenditures as of 12/31/21 CIP22-04 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Window Replacement & Lead Abatement 40,000 - CIP22-05 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Fire Sprinkler & Head Replacement 12,000 - CIP22-06 Museum Impvt 8 6021 PG Museum Roof Repair 40,000 - 8 Total Museum Improvement Fund 92,000 -
CIP20-22 Civic Center 14 6021 City Hall - Admin Services Flooring (Laminate & Bathrooms) 18,496 15,085 14 Total Civic Center Fund 18,496 15,085
CIP21-01 Measure X 17 6041 FY 20/21 Street Rehab on Lower Lighthouse Ave & Funston Ave (1) 282,759 442,854 CIP22-01 Measure X 17 6041 FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation 566,015 - CIP22-02 Measure X 17 6041 FY21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal 50,000 - 17 Total Measure X Fund 898,774 442,854
CIP20-14 Reacreation Donation 25 6021 Heater - Youth Center 12,000 - 25 Total Recreation Donation Fund 12,000 -
CIP22-07 Chautauqua 26 6021 Chautauqua Hall Repair 18,654 - 26 Total Chautauqua Hall Fund 18,654 -
CIP22-09 Yount 41 6031 George Washington Park Mgmt Plan 46,000 16,383 41 Total Yount Fund 46,000 16,383
CIP20-19 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Electric Vehicle Charging 158,775 75,000 CIP21-05 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Park ADA Compliance Assessment and Transition Plan 50,000 - CIP21-07 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Police Department Server Room Improvements 12,000 - CIP22-08 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 City Hall Downspout Replacement 26,500 - CIP22-14 Strong Disbursement 46 6021 Gutter Replacement - PW Corp Yard 10,000 - 46 Total Strong Disbursement Fund 257,275 75,000
CIP22-01 RMRA (SB1) 47 6041 FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation 310,428 - 47 Total RMRA (SB1) Fund 310,428 -
CIP18-46 General Fund 63 6031 Tide Pool & Point Pinos 1,636,973 803,256 CIP22-01 General Fund 63 6041 FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation 300,000 30,030 CIP22-02 General Fund 63 6041 FY21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal 200,000 - CIP22-15 General Fund 63 6021 Library Roof Repair 44,588 - CIP22-17 General Fund 63 6031 Caledonia Park Children's Playground 6,173 - CIP22-18 General Fund 63 6031 Jewell Park Gazebo Repair 20,000 - CIP22-21 General Fund 63 6031 George Washington Park Children's Playground 25,000 - TRC21-02 General Fund 63 6021 PW Fire and Reconstruction (2) 300,000 130,373 63 Total General Fund Capital Improvements Fund 2,532,734 963,660 CIP20-13 Sewer 76 6051 Main Sewer Line Imp (Ocean View w/Phase 4 Urban Diversion) 1,323,852 37,002 CIP21-01 Sewer 76 6051 FY 20/21 Street Rehab on Lower Lighthouse Ave & Funston Ave (1) 422,726 312,403 CIP22-01 Sewer 76 6051 FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation 400,000 77,023 CIP22-03 Sewer 76 6051 Phase 9 Sewer Improvements 500,000 11,580 76 Total Sewer Fund 2,646,578 438,008
CIP22-11 Golf Course 77 6021 HVAC Replacement Golf Course Clubhouse 25,000 77 Total Golf Course Fund 25,000 -
CIP18-84 ASBS Grant 79 6026 ASBS Storm Water Capture and Diversion 523,818 447,198 FY 21/22 Capital Improvement Project Expenditure Report Second Quarter - Fiscal Year 21/22
PG CC 2/16/22
62 of 470
FY 21/22 Capital Improvement Project Expenditure Report Second Quarter - Fiscal Year 21/22
79 Total ASBS Grant Fund 523,818 447,198
CIP20-17 Mc Indoo 92 6031 Beach Access 21,469 2,100
CIP21-10 Mc Indoo 92 6031 Drinking Fountain at Lover's Point Park 25,057 CIP22-13 Mc Indoo 92 6031 Replace Backstop - PG Municipal Ball Park 17,529 92 Total Mc Indoo Fund 64,055 2,100
CIP20-25 Koo Estate 93 6042 Downtown Iconic Cypress Tree Moon Lighting 11,870 - CIP22-10 Koo Estate 93 6031 Lover's Point Pier Repair 100,000 167 CIP22-13 Koo Estate 93 6031 Replace Backstop - PG Municipal Ball Park 7,000 93 Total Koo Estate Fund 118,870 167
Grand Total 7,564,682 2,400,454
Overall Percentage of Budget Expended 32%
(1) This project is currently under an internal audit review. The combined Fiscal Year 21/22 remaining project budget is $705,485. The total multi-year budget allocated between the Sewer, Measure X, RMRA, and General Fund is $1,354,190.

The total multi-year project costs prior to any adjustments is $1,403,962. The overall net project difference is $47,772. These additional overall costs reflects preliminary design costs that were incurred prior to the initiation and award of the construction contract. From an accounting standpoint, these costs should be considered as part of the full cost of the project. While final review is still pending, a budget amendment may be needed to appropriate additional funds to cover these costs, as well as realign the approved project budget between the Sewer Fund and the Measure X Fund to correspond with the appropriate classification of expenditures. Any updates will be included as part of the mid-year process. There are sufficient funds within the Measure X Fund to cover any additional appropriations needed. (2) On January 19, 2022, the City approved a contract of $485,643 for construction and design of this project, with a 15% contingency. A formal amendment of the budget is planned to reflect this change as part of the mid-year process.

PG CC 2/16/22
63 of 470
Agenda No. 8 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Check Register Report – January 2022
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report.

DISCUSSION
The check register is a detailed account of monthly expenditures. It provides budgetary insight and promotes transparency. It is an excellent counterpart to the City's monthly Core Revenue Report; and is a practice followed by many other local jurisdictions.

The check register is produced from the City’s financial system. The report groups the checks by the respective city fund and vendor. The check register includes the check number, the check issue date, the name of the vendor, and a description of the purchase and the amount of the check.

Attached is the check register report for January 2022.

The monthly total is provided on the last page of the report.

OPTIONS
N/A – This is an informational report only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact. This is informational only.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue needs.

Attachments
Check Register_January 2022
PG CC 2/16/22
64 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
65 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 100996 V 10/14/21 2796 VICTORY TOYOTA 301 5227 VEH REPAIR 0.00 −258.35101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 101 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 4.70101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 421 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 4.72101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 401 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 7.85101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 131 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 9.42101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 201 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 14.12101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 121 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 14.12101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 501 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 36.09101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 301 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 62.77TOTAL CHECK 0.00 153.79101 101616 01/07/22 8890 4LEAF 201 5201 BUILDING SERVICES 0.00 59,754.84101 101616 01/07/22 8890 4LEAF 505 5201 TRAFFICE ENG SERVIC 0.00 112.50101 101616 01/07/22 8890 4LEAF 201 5201 BUILDING SERVICES 0.00 1,300.43TOTAL CHECK 0.00 61,167.77101 101617 01/07/22 6216 MONTEREY BAY TREEWO 513 5201 12/13 TO 12/24/2021 0.00 3,100.00101 101618 01/07/22 5931 ALLSTAR PAINTING & 503 5223 CMO−ROOF REPAIR 0.00 4,587.90101 101619 01/07/22 4488 ALTERNATOR STARTER 503 5227 UNIT # 59 0.00 266.44101 101620 01/07/22 4965 ALVAREZ TECHNOLOGY 133 5201 HANDS ON SUPPORT CO 0.00 5,137.50101 101621 01/07/22 3905 AMERICAN LOCK & KEY 503 5223 0.00 35.00101 101621 01/07/22 3905 AMERICAN LOCK & KEY 503 5223 5−410 0.00 13.66TOTAL CHECK 0.00 48.66101 101622 01/07/22 9430 ARAMARK UNIFORM & C 301 5201 LINEN SERVICE 0.00 92.36101 101624 01/07/22 9539 ASHLEY LOSZAK 01 214 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFU 0.00 189.00101 101625 01/07/22 6154 AT&T 421 5212 REC ALARM 0.00 53.42101 101625 01/07/22 6154 AT&T 133 5212 ADMIN ALARM 0.00 53.44TOTAL CHECK 0.00 106.86101 101626 01/07/22 5363 AT&T CALNET 3 133 5212 ADMIN 0.00 22.91101 101628 01/07/22 5378 CA BUILDING STANDAR 01 231 OCT − DEC 2021 0.00 189.00101 101629 01/07/22 395 CA DEPT OF CONSERVA 01 219 SMIP OCT−DEC 2021 0.00 388.78101 101630 01/07/22 399 CA DEPT OF INDUSTRI 401 5223 BUILDING 0.00 125.00101 101632 01/07/22 7532 CHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 131 5201 AUDIT AND ACCOUNTIN 0.00 8,550.00101 101633 01/07/22 9541 CHUCK TREMPER 01 4201 REUND TREE PERMIT 0.00 90.00101 101635 01/07/22 5171 COMCAST 133 5206 INTERNET REC 0.00 100.01101 101635 01/07/22 5171 COMCAST 133 5206 TV SERVICE−CH 0.00 4.02TOTAL CHECK 0.00 104.03 PG CC 2/16/22
66 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 2
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101636 01/07/22 622 CHOMP 301 5291 BLOOD DRAW FEE 0.00 27.00101 101638 01/07/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 351 5291 DEC 2021 WATER SERV 0.00 136.59101 101639 01/07/22 4173 FASTENAL 503 5223 1730/N95REPIRATORBK 0.00 45.24101 101639 01/07/22 4173 FASTENAL 502 5309 12−18VLILONBATTCHRG 0.00 250.11TOTAL CHECK 0.00 295.35101 101640 01/07/22 592 FOREST HILL ACE HAR 503 5223 PERKINS PARK 0.00 25.00101 101640 01/07/22 592 FOREST HILL ACE HAR 503 5223 CHAUTAUQUA HALL 0.00 30.43101 101640 01/07/22 592 FOREST HILL ACE HAR 503 5227 UNIT 51 0.00 14.33101 101640 01/07/22 592 FOREST HILL ACE HAR 503 5227 UNIT 51 0.00 15.20101 101640 01/07/22 592 FOREST HILL ACE HAR 401 5223 LIBRARY 0.00 17.14TOTAL CHECK 0.00 102.10101 101641 01/07/22 7884 GARDAWORLD 131 5205 JANUARY 2022 0.00 66.66101 101642 01/07/22 9540 GOHAIWAN LLC 01 4203 128 FUNSTON AVE 0.00 112.00101 101643 01/07/22 1105 GRANITE ROCK COMPAN 505 5309 150R−3/8" RAP 15 DI 0.00 684.86101 101645 01/07/22 3409 GREEN RUBBER−KENNED 502 5309 SUPPLIES 0.00 29.38101 101646 01/07/22 1138 GROVE MARKET 421 5361 WINTER CAMP SESSION 0.00 9.17101 101646 01/07/22 1138 GROVE MARKET 421 5361 WINTER CAMP SESSION 0.00 17.64TOTAL CHECK 0.00 26.81101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 503 5223 0.00 39.65101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 503 5223 0.00 76.59101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 401 5223 0.00 7.11101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 503 5223 0.00 18.29101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 503 5223 0.00 21.62101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 505 5309 0.00 4.96101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 505 5309 0.00 444.89101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 513 5309 0.00 488.35TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,101.46101 101648 01/07/22 4321 HOME DEPOT CREDIT S 503 5223 PERKINS PARK 0.00 48.34101 101649 01/07/22 1323 INNOVATIVE INTERFAC 401 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 2,520.00101 101650 01/07/22 7433 IPS GROUP, INC 301 5224 PARKING METTER MAIN 0.00 148.08101 101650 01/07/22 7433 IPS GROUP, INC 301 5224 METER REPAIRS 0.00 1,580.94TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,729.02101 101651 01/07/22 3521 KIMBALL MIDWEST 502 5309 MECH STOCK 0.00 48.94101 101651 01/07/22 3521 KIMBALL MIDWEST 502 5309 MECH STOCK 0.00 49.47101 101651 01/07/22 3521 KIMBALL MIDWEST 502 5309 MECH STOCK 0.00 121.67TOTAL CHECK 0.00 220.08101 101653 01/07/22 1565 DIANNE LYLE 421 5208 AFRO−LATIN JAZZ DAN 0.00 1,210.30 PG CC 2/16/22
67 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 3
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101654 01/07/22 1568 M & S BUILDING SUPP 503 5223 MEMORIAL BENCH 0.00 175.96101 101655 01/07/22 1638 MONTEREY PEACE OFFI 301 5215 RANGE RENTAL TRAINI 0.00 630.00101 101656 01/07/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 35.87101 101656 01/07/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 51.09101 101656 01/07/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 54.35101 101656 01/07/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 21.74101 101656 01/07/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 329.42TOTAL CHECK 0.00 492.47101 101657 01/07/22 3443 MONTEREY BAY PEST C 503 5223 2100 SUNSET DR. 0.00 490.00101 101662 01/07/22 1801 MONTEREY TIRE SERVI 301 5227 UNIT# 3 0.00 133.94101 101662 01/07/22 1801 MONTEREY TIRE SERVI 301 5227 UNIT #6 0.00 267.89TOTAL CHECK 0.00 401.83101 101663 01/07/22 1802 CITY OF MONTEREY 351 5201 JANUARY 2022 0.00 226,572.93101 101663 01/07/22 1802 CITY OF MONTEREY 351 5227 NOV 2021 REPAIR COS 0.00 378.75TOTAL CHECK 0.00 226,951.68101 101665 01/07/22 7417 MP EXPRESS 301 5301 NOTICE TO APPEAR PR 0.00 662.29101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 24.43101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 51.99101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 102.46101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 133 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 107.01101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 119.51101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 6.02101 101666 01/07/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 10.86TOTAL CHECK 0.00 422.28101 101667 01/07/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 421 5222 RECREATION 0.00 272.39101 101668 01/07/22 9529 PROTELESIS 133 5201 SOFTWARE ASSURANCE 0.00 2,332.20101 101668 01/07/22 9529 PROTELESIS 133 5201 PHONE SYSTEM SUPPOR 0.00 3,476.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,808.20101 101669 01/07/22 8429 PURE JANITORIAL LLC 411 5201 FY21/22 JANITORIAL 0.00 2,224.00101 101671 01/07/22 2276 BECKS SHOES AND REP 502 5309 ARLON MOORE SHOES 0.00 171.25101 101672 01/07/22 6520 RINCON CONSULTANTS, 201 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 990.00101 101672 01/07/22 6520 RINCON CONSULTANTS, 201 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 2,261.25TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,251.25101 101673 01/07/22 2371 SAFETY−KLEEN SYSTEM 502 5309 PARTS 0.00 323.28101 101674 01/07/22 2448 SENTRY ALARM SYSTEM 503 5223 GOLF LINKS 0.00 150.00101 101675 01/07/22 8097 SEQUENTIAL 503 5223 RECREATION BUILDING 0.00 125.00 PG CC 2/16/22
68 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 4
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101675 01/07/22 8097 SEQUENTIAL 503 5223 YOUTH CENTER 0.00 150.00101 101675 01/07/22 8097 SEQUENTIAL 503 5223 COMMUNITY CENTER 0.00 175.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 450.00101 101676 01/07/22 2541 SPCA OF MONTEREY CO 301 5201 ANIMAL SHELTER 0.00 664.00101 101678 01/07/22 2707 TRUCKSIS ENTERPRISE 301 5291 BUSINESS CARDS/SHUM 0.00 48.07101 101679 01/07/22 5252 ULINE 301 5306 TRAINING ROOM FURNI 0.00 5,766.76101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 351 5212 FIRE 0.00 64.19101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 401 5212 LIB 0.00 76.02101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 421 5212 REC 0.00 91.87101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 201 5212 CDD 0.00 102.39101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 131 5212 FIN 0.00 20.04101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 121 5212 CM 0.00 26.87101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 133 5212 IT 0.00 38.01101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 133 5212 ADMIN 0.00 51.35101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 501 5212 PW 0.00 131.34101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 301 5212 PD 0.00 136.42101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 501 5212 PW 0.00 526.04TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,264.54101 101682 01/07/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 503 5227 UNIT 59 0.00 90.90101 101682 01/07/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 503 5227 UNIT 58 0.00 −17.48101 101682 01/07/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 505 5227 UNIT 17 0.00 −17.48101 101682 01/07/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 501 5227 UNIT #1 0.00 −17.48101 101682 01/07/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 503 5227 UNIT 51 0.00 155.97TOTAL CHECK 0.00 194.43101 101683 01/07/22 1204 WINNERS AWARDS & EN 513 5309 MEMORIAL TREE PROGR 0.00 289.51101 101683 01/07/22 1204 WINNERS AWARDS & EN 513 5309 MEMORIAL TREE PROGR 0.00 289.51TOTAL CHECK 0.00 579.02101 101684 01/07/22 1693 MISSION LINEN SUPPL 351 5291 LINEN SERVICES FY 2 0.00 66.43101 101684 01/07/22 1693 MISSION LINEN SUPPL 351 5291 LINEN SERVICES FY 2 0.00 66.43101 101684 01/07/22 1693 MISSION LINEN SUPPL 351 5291 LINEN SERVICES FY 2 0.00 66.43101 101684 01/07/22 1693 MISSION LINEN SUPPL 351 5291 LINEN SERVICES FY 2 0.00 66.43TOTAL CHECK 0.00 265.72101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 73.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 73.79101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 73.79 PG CC 2/16/22
69 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 5
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 421 5305 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 63.45101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 421 5305 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 63.45101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 503 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 505 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 502 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.99101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 351 5291 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.07101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 351 5291 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.07101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 421 5305 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.66101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 421 5305 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 11.66TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,183.72101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 7.83101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 8.25101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 9.86101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 9.98101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 10.86101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 10.86101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 10.86101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 13.04101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 14.97101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 401 5223 LIBRARY 0.00 15.20101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 17.39101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 18.48101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 3.03101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 3.03101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 3.25101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 3.68101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 4.98101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 4.99101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 5.43101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 5.43101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 6.07101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 6.50101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STREET 0.00 1.67101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 30.44101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 31.53101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 301 5227 PD 0.00 6.50101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5227 B&G TRUCK 51 0.00 18.48101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 301 5227 PD 0.00 18.48101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 501 5309 ADMIN 0.00 7.17101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 301 5227 PD 0.00 37.81101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 32.60101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 351 5223 B&G FIRE DEPT. 0.00 37.37 PG CC 2/16/22
70 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 6
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 49.52101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 52.66101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 65.85101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 73.20101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 401 5223 LIBRARY 0.00 84.76101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5223 B&G 0.00 103.27101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 503 5227 B&G TRUCK 51 0.00 4.99101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 301 5227 PD 0.00 6.08101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STRET 0.00 16.30101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STREET 0.00 18.01101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STREET 0.00 18.20101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STREET 0.00 22.22101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 505 5309 STREET 0.00 39.12TOTAL CHECK 0.00 970.20101 101693 01/14/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5291 AFLAC P/T 0.00 69.24101 101693 01/14/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5200 AFLAC PREM 0.00 717.32101 101693 01/14/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5201 AFLAC P/T 0.00 1,776.62TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,563.18101 101694 01/14/22 2935 CALIF LAW ENFORCMEN 01 202 DED:3200 LTD PD 0.00 514.50101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:531 HEALTH 0.00 350.62101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:109 HEALTH 0.00 507.91101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:118 HEALTH 0.00 674.50101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:115 HEALTH 0.00 701.23101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2074 HEALTH 0.00 811.50101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2072 HEALTH 0.00 862.50101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:120 HEALTH 0.00 1,015.82101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:1 HEALTH 0.00 1,057.01101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2225 HEALTH INS 0.00 1,057.01101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:0563 HEALTH FAM 0.00 1,114.18101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2 HEALTH 0.00 1,473.34101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:533 HEALTH 0.00 1,823.20101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:110 HEALTH 0.00 2,031.62101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2071 HEALTH 0.00 2,397.00101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:103 HEALTH 0.00 2,454.34101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:102 HEALTH 0.00 2,748.24101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:104 HEALTH 0.00 3,506.15101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:105 HEALTH 0.00 3,646.40101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:106 HEALTH 0.00 3,699.57101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2073 HEALTH FAM 0.00 4,438.00101 101695 01/14/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:100 HEALTH 0.00 6,342.12TOTAL CHECK 0.00 42,712.26101 101696 01/14/22 2939 CALPERS LONG TERM C 01 202 DED:6000 LTC 0.00 94.89101 101697 01/14/22 3134 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:3300 AFLAC DEP 0.00 100.00101 101697 01/14/22 3134 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:3301 AFLAC MED 0.00 2,578.02TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,678.02101 101698 01/14/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*FM MEDICARE 0.00 9,899.12 PG CC 2/16/22
71 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 7
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101698 01/14/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*SCA STATE TAX 0.00 14,551.59101 101698 01/14/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*FT FEDERAL TX 0.00 38,163.40TOTAL CHECK 0.00 62,614.11101 101699 01/14/22 2937 FORT DEARBORN LIFE 01 202 DED:3500 LIFE INS 0.00 1,092.00101 101700 01/14/22 2946 PACIFIC GROVE CITY 01 202 DED:7003 ASSOC DUES 0.00 23.75101 101700 01/14/22 2946 PACIFIC GROVE CITY 01 202 DED:7000 ASSOC DUES 0.00 783.75TOTAL CHECK 0.00 807.50101 101701 01/14/22 2938 MASS MUTUAL (457 PL 01 202 DED:3999 ROTH IRA 0.00 965.38101 101701 01/14/22 2938 MASS MUTUAL (457 PL 01 202 DED:4000 DEF COMP 0.00 13,986.57TOTAL CHECK 0.00 14,951.95101 101702 01/14/22 2936 MTRY COUNTY DEPT OF 01 202 DED:0023 GARNISH 0.00 236.30101 101703 01/14/22 2949 PACIFIC GROVE MANAG 01 202 DED:7203 ASSOC DUES 0.00 25.00101 101704 01/14/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1006 WORK COMP 0.00 8.52101 101704 01/14/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1009 WORK COMP 0.00 63.85101 101704 01/14/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1005 WORK COMP 0.00 1,183.92101 101704 01/14/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1010 WORK COMP 0.00 2,884.83101 101704 01/14/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1003 WORK COMP 0.00 6,183.40TOTAL CHECK 0.00 10,324.52101 101705 01/14/22 2052 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:7510 PERS REIMB 0.00 44.13101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2101 DENTAL 0.00 75.80101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:201 DENTAL 0.00 187.95101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:202 DENTAL 0.00 189.64101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2102 DENTAL 0.00 225.54101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:200 DENTAL 0.00 606.40101 101706 01/14/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2103 DENTAL FAM 0.00 663.74TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,949.07101 101707 01/14/22 2054 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:0005 SUTA 0.00 123.92101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0025 PERS RT MS 0.00 −3.38101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0004 SURV BEN 0.00 82.77101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0022 PERS SP MS 0.00 181.78101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:08 PERS OTHER 0.00 380.57101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0018 PERS SP SF 0.00 784.15101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0009 PERS OTHER 0.00 1,199.49101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:07 PERS CITY 0.00 5,857.97101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0002 PERS 0.00 6,144.50101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0017 PERS RG SF 0.00 6,534.35101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0011 PERS ER SF 0.00 7,391.68101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0021 PERS REG M 0.00 7,435.41101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0020 PERS ER M3 0.00 8,561.32101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:01 PERS 0.00 11,574.44101 101708 01/14/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0006 PERS CITY 0.00 12,674.46TOTAL CHECK 0.00 68,799.51 PG CC 2/16/22
72 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 8
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101709 01/14/22 2943 POLICE OFFICERS ASS 01 202 DED:7204 ASSOC DUES 0.00 7.00101 101709 01/14/22 2943 POLICE OFFICERS ASS 01 202 DED:7205 ASSOC DUES 0.00 881.04TOTAL CHECK 0.00 888.04101 101710 01/14/22 2940 LEGAL SHIELD 01 202 DED:6100 LEGAL SVC 0.00 14.95101 101711 01/14/22 7956 STATE DISABILITY TA 01 202 DED:0026 SDI 0.00 3,800.23101 101712 01/14/22 3227 SHERIFF OF MONTEREY 01 202 DED:0014 WAGE ORDER 0.00 449.15101 101713 01/14/22 8352 TRANSAMERICA EMPLOY 01 202 DED:5202 TRANSAMERI 0.00 627.08101 101714 01/14/22 4177 UNION BANK OF CALIF 01 202 DED:4005 PARS−457 0.00 616.58101 101715 01/14/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:2502 VISION 0.00 27.92101 101715 01/14/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:302 VISION 0.00 60.00101 101715 01/14/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:301 VISION 0.00 75.00101 101715 01/14/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:300 VISION 0.00 216.38101 101715 01/14/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:2503 VISION FAM 0.00 285.01TOTAL CHECK 0.00 664.31101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5291 FRATI CC DEC 2021 0.00 11.95101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5212 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 288.48101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 MADALONE CC DEC 202 0.00 198.40101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 501 5261 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 15.96101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5261 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 65.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5229 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 35.98101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5224 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 29.26101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5224 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 32.35101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5224 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 61.95101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5291 FRATI CC DEC 2021 0.00 38.05101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 501 5291 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 52.50101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5291 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 61.44101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5301 GODWIN CC DEC 2021 0.00 15.97101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 41.25101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 65.82101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 170.11101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5291 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 150.25101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5291 LIVIAN CC DEC 2021 0.00 217.50101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5224 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 152.52101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5261 HARVEY CC DEC 2021 0.00 175.65101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5261 LIVIAN CC DEC 2021 0.00 225.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 MADALONE CC DEC 202 0.00 19.97101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 MADALONE CC DEC 202 0.00 24.95101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 MADALONE CC DEC 202 0.00 48.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5215 HARVEY CC DEC 2021 0.00 53.80101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5217 LINDSTROM CC DEC 20 0.00 84.32101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5215 KANDELL CC DEC 2021 0.00 75.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 201 5215 WYATT CC DEC 2021 0.00 150.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5223 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 118.47101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5223 GODWIN CC DEC 2021 0.00 149.66 PG CC 2/16/22
73 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 9
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5275 SANTOS CC DEC 2021 0.00 129.81101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5261 HANNAH CC DEC 2021 0.00 110.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5261 HANNAH CC DEC 2021 0.00 130.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5291 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 108.16101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5291 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 117.89101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5291 HANNAH CC DEC 2021 0.00 119.85101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5291 HANNAH CC DEC 2021 0.00 150.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 119.40101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 125.16101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5227 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 948.92101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5261 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 808.86101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5303 WEIRICK CC DEC 2021 0.00 716.18101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5307 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 467.31101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5307 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 592.68101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 421 5309 CLARK CC DEC 2021 0.00 352.23101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 501 5309 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 442.84101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5215 LAGASCA CC DEC 2021 0.00 −338.13101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5215 LAGASCA CC DEC 2021 0.00 −250.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 305.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 PD TRAVEL CC DEC 20 0.00 353.60101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5215 GODWIN CC DEC 2021 0.00 372.48101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5215 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 750.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5215 LINDSTROM CC DEC 20 0.00 1,231.86101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5202 LIVIAN CC DEC 2021 0.00 840.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5202 LIVIAN CC DEC 2021 0.00 1,200.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 503 5223 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 363.55101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5303 LIVIAN CC DEC 2021 0.00 9.77101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 501 5301 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 8.73101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5301 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 9.77101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 401 5301 WEIRICK CC DEC 2021 0.00 67.48101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 301 5291 FRANCIS CC DEC 2021 0.00 15.31101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5229 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 14.99101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5229 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 450.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 133 5307 KHASIMI CC DEC 2021 0.00 1,279.53101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 421 5361 CLARK CC DEC 2021 0.00 780.99101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 131 5221 HANNAH CC DEC 2021 0.00 275.00101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 121 5236 LINDSTROM CC DEC 20 0.00 278.99TOTAL CHECK 0.00 16,287.77101 101719 01/21/22 7755 ALLSAFE 301 5223 SIDE DOOR ACCESS CA 0.00 175.00101 101720 01/21/22 4965 ALVAREZ TECHNOLOGY 133 5201 IT SUPPORT FEBURARY 0.00 450.00101 101721 01/21/22 106 AMERICAN SUPPLY COM 351 5305 FIRE DEPT SUPPLIES 0.00 73.08101 101721 01/21/22 106 AMERICAN SUPPLY COM 503 5305 SUPPLIES 0.00 899.12101 101721 01/21/22 106 AMERICAN SUPPLY COM 503 5305 SUPPLIES 0.00 1,024.43101 101721 01/21/22 106 AMERICAN SUPPLY COM 503 5305 SUPPLIES 0.00 2,522.67TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,519.30101 101722 01/21/22 9430 ARAMARK UNIFORM & C 301 5201 LINEN SERVICE 0.00 92.36101 101722 01/21/22 9430 ARAMARK UNIFORM & C 301 5201 LINEN SERVICE 0.00 101.60TOTAL CHECK 0.00 193.96 PG CC 2/16/22
74 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 10
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101723 01/21/22 6154 AT&T 421 5212 RECREATION 0.00 33.78101 101723 01/21/22 6154 AT&T 133 5212 ADMIN ALARM 0.00 33.78TOTAL CHECK 0.00 67.56101 101724 01/21/22 5363 AT&T CALNET 3 133 5206 INTERNET − LIBRARY 0.00 176.52101 101724 01/21/22 5363 AT&T CALNET 3 133 5212 PHONES 0.00 2,142.50TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,319.02101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 61.45101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 116.71101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 143.73101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 154.81101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5303 BOOKS AND MATERIALS 0.00 1,446.28101 101726 01/21/22 213 BAKER & TAYLOR COMP 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 8.75TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,931.73101 101728 01/21/22 5303 VERIZON BUSINESS 301 5206 VERIZON PORT ACCESS 0.00 580.49101 101729 01/21/22 3501 CALTRONICS BUSINESS 133 5224 KONICA WINDOWS UPGR 0.00 254.48101 101730 01/21/22 522 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 133 5229 VMW CARBON BLACK EP 0.00 2,000.00101 101731 01/21/22 1040 CENGAGE LEARNING/GA 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 171.33101 101731 01/21/22 1040 CENGAGE LEARNING/GA 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 27.83TOTAL CHECK 0.00 199.16101 101732 01/21/22 5198 CODE PUBLISHING, IN 121 5201 CODE UPDATES 0.00 208.50101 101733 01/21/22 6309 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMI 111 5205 CDTFA TRANSACTIONS 0.00 150.00101 101733 01/21/22 6309 COLANTUONO, HIGHSMI 111 5205 LEGAL SERVICES PG&E 0.00 150.98TOTAL CHECK 0.00 300.98101 101734 01/21/22 5171 COMCAST 133 5206 INTERNET PW 0.00 225.56101 101735 01/21/22 696 CSC OF SALINAS 505 5227 UNIT 26 0.00 12.99101 101737 01/21/22 3451 DE LAY & LAREDO 111 5203 DEC 2021 LEGAL SERV 0.00 200.20101 101737 01/21/22 3451 DE LAY & LAREDO 111 5203 GENERAL LEGAL FEES 0.00 35,095.00101 101737 01/21/22 3451 DE LAY & LAREDO 201 5205 DEC 2021 LEGAL SERV 0.00 2,659.80TOTAL CHECK 0.00 37,955.00101 101738 01/21/22 779 DEMCO 401 5223 BLDG 0.00 4,081.21101 101739 01/21/22 9395 DLT SOLUTIONS, LLC 133 5229 SYTEMS MGMT SOFTWAR 0.00 2,392.16101 101740 01/21/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 421 5201 WATER SERVICE 0.00 53.89101 101740 01/21/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 421 5201 WATER SERVICE 0.00 62.33101 101740 01/21/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 421 5201 WATER SERVICE 0.00 64.33101 101740 01/21/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 421 5201 WATER SERVICE 0.00 64.82101 101740 01/21/22 3970 ALHAMBRA & SIERRA S 421 5201 WATER SERVICE 0.00 74.82TOTAL CHECK 0.00 320.19 PG CC 2/16/22
75 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 11
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101741 01/21/22 904 ENGINEERED FIRE SYS 351 5201 PLAN REVIEW DEC 202 0.00 350.00101 101741 01/21/22 904 ENGINEERED FIRE SYS 351 5201 PLAN REVIEW NOV 202 0.00 950.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,300.00101 101743 01/21/22 7127 GACHINA LANDSCAPE M 503 5201 JANUARY 2022 0.00 763.00101 101744 01/21/22 8975 HEIHACHIRO TAKARABE 421 5208 TAI CHI DEC 2021 0.00 42.00101 101745 01/21/22 8993 HR & ASSOCIATES 225 5201 ATC PLANNING SERVIC 0.00 2,712.50101 101746 01/21/22 1300 IBM CORPORATION 301 5201 MAAS360 DEVICES 0.00 23.15101 101747 01/21/22 3521 KIMBALL MIDWEST 502 5309 3/8 DR REVERSIBLE R 0.00 61.68101 101747 01/21/22 3521 KIMBALL MIDWEST 502 5309 MECH STOCK 0.00 253.16TOTAL CHECK 0.00 314.84101 101750 01/21/22 7450 MACEE FLORES 301 5215 EDUCATION REIMBURS 0.00 754.90101 101751 01/21/22 9428 MCA DIRECT 121 5303 WALL CALENDAR 0.00 14.89101 101752 01/21/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 74.70101 101752 01/21/22 3304 MIDWEST TAPE 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 32.61TOTAL CHECK 0.00 107.31101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 503 5223 B&G 0.00 140.52101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 301 5227 PD 0.00 54.09101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 301 5227 PD 0.00 63.42101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE UNIT 6414 0.00 69.74101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE 6424 0.00 79.42101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 503 5227 B&G 0.00 90.65101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE 6494 0.00 127.50101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 503 5227 B&G 0.00 −4.70101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 501 5227 PW ADMIN 0.00 10.26101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 301 5227 PD 0.00 31.71101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 503 5223 B&G 0.00 −140.52101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 502 5309 MECH 0.00 14.13101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE UNIT 6414 0.00 16.75101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 502 5309 MECH 0.00 20.52101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 502 5309 MECH 0.00 20.52101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE 6494 0.00 20.52101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 501 5227 PW ADMIN 0.00 20.84101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE #6424 0.00 21.72101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 351 5227 FIRE #6424 0.00 22.83101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 505 5227 STREETS 12 0.00 27.95101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 505 5226 STREETS 0.00 48.85TOTAL CHECK 0.00 756.72101 101756 01/21/22 3443 MONTEREY BAY PEST C 503 5223 600 PINE AVE. 0.00 180.00101 101756 01/21/22 3443 MONTEREY BAY PEST C 503 5223 2100 SUNSET MONTHLY 0.00 490.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 670.00 PG CC 2/16/22
76 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 12
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101757 01/21/22 1756 MONTEREY COUNTY EHB 421 5309 HEALTH PERMIT 0.00 167.00101 101757 01/21/22 1756 MONTEREY COUNTY EHB 501 5291 HEALTH PERMIT 0.00 35.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 202.00101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 101 5221 PUB NOTICE ELECTION 0.00 290.16101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 101 5221 PUBLIC RES. NO 21−0 0.00 380.84101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 201 5221 PH−ATC CC 01−12−22 0.00 616.60101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 121 5221 2ND READ IT POSITIO 0.00 108.81101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 121 5221 MEA CLASS 0.00 108.81101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 131 5221 2ND READ BUDGET ADO 0.00 108.81101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 121 5221 2ND READ MINIMUM WA 0.00 108.81101 101758 01/21/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 101 5221 CALL FOR ELECTION 0.00 2,708.60TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,431.44101 101759 V 01/21/22 1780 CITY OF MONTEREY LI 401 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 −24.99101 101759 01/21/22 1780 CITY OF MONTEREY LI 401 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 24.99TOTAL CHECK 0.00 0.00101 101761 01/21/22 7681 MONTEREY PENINSULA 505 5309 PARKING METERS GR−0 0.00 650.00101 101762 01/21/22 7417 MP EXPRESS 301 5301 PARKING CITATIONS 0.00 2,583.64101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 311.35101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 514.30101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 55.04101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 121 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 59.46101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 121 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 63.38101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 401 5301 LIBRARY SUPPLIES 0.00 67.57101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 75.94101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 130.41101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 133.66101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 10.86101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 17.39101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 17.70101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 21.74101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 23.37101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 23.48101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 29.47101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 47.38101 101764 01/21/22 1958 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 47.86TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,650.36101 101765 01/21/22 5567 OVERDRIVE, INC. 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 20.93101 101766 01/21/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 505 5222 GOLF STREETS 0.00 55.72101 101766 01/21/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 411 5802 MUSEUM 0.00 270.67TOTAL CHECK 0.00 326.39101 101767 01/21/22 2062 PACIFIC WEST WATER 131 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 42.85101 101767 01/21/22 2062 PACIFIC WEST WATER 201 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 42.85TOTAL CHECK 0.00 85.70 PG CC 2/16/22
77 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 13
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101768 01/21/22 3042 PEAK ENTERPRISES 401 5303 BOOKS & MATERIALS 0.00 1,125.90101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 501 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 502 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 503 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 505 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25TOTAL CHECK 0.00 77.00101 101771 01/21/22 2448 SENTRY ALARM SYSTEM 503 5223 GOLF COURSE CART ST 0.00 885.42101 101772 01/21/22 2567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 301 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 13.75101 101772 01/21/22 2567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 301 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 30.30101 101772 01/21/22 2567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 301 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 48.93101 101772 01/21/22 2567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 301 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 130.47101 101772 01/21/22 2567 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 301 5301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 513.05TOTAL CHECK 0.00 736.50101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 505 5311 STRT 0.00 374.29101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 503 5311 B&G 0.00 748.57101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 01 111 0.00 2,661.38101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 301 5311 PD 0.00 1,070.05TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,854.29101 101774 01/21/22 2993 SUPERION, LLC 131 5201 CONSULTING, PROJ MG 0.00 180.00101 101775 01/21/22 1758 THE MONTEREY COUNTY 201 5221 PH−ATC CC 1−12−27 0.00 1,146.98101 101776 01/21/22 2680 TOPE’S TREE SERVICE 513 5201 FY21/22 TREE MAINT. 0.00 720.00101 101777 01/21/22 8379 TRANSUNION RISK AND 301 5201 4170441/TLO 0.00 75.00101 101779 01/21/22 7867 UPS 301 5221 UPS SHIPPING 0.00 12.00101 101781 01/21/22 2772 VALLEY SAW & GARDEN 505 5291 0.00 1,669.93101 101782 01/21/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 301 5206 VERIZON WIRELESS MO 0.00 511.42101 101784 01/21/22 2800 ROXANE VIRAY 301 5123 FEBRUARY 2022 0.00 150.00101 101785 01/21/22 9305 WATSONVILLE FORD 503 5227 UNIT 54 0.00 59.28101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 501 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 147.32101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 401 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 164.74101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 301 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 173.65101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 131 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 173.65101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 121 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 174.71101 101786 01/21/22 8136 WELLS FARGO VENDOR 201 5225 01/17/22 − 02/16/22 0.00 205.51TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,039.58101 101788 01/21/22 2894 WILSON’S PLUMBING & 503 5223 YOUTH CENTER 0.00 1,049.66101 101788 01/21/22 2894 WILSON’S PLUMBING & 503 5223 YOUTH CENTER 0.00 4,984.72TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6,034.38 PG CC 2/16/22
78 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 14
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101790 01/21/22 2928 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 501 5291 EYEWASH SERVICE 0.00 90.00101 101791 01/20/22 2133 PERS 01 202 PPE 12/25/21 SANTOS 0.00 428.59101 101792 01/21/22 1782 CITY OF MONTEREY LI 401 5201 CONTRACT SERVICES 0.00 24.99101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 139 GRAND AVE 0.00 53.54101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 351 5222 643 HYDRANTS HYDT 0.00 35.51101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 748 LIGHTHSE IRRG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 131 5222 300 FOREST IRRIG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 800 LIGHTHSE PLANTE 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 792 LIGHTHSE IRRIG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 582 LIGHTHSE IRRIG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 765 LIGHTHSE IRRIG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 2100 SUNSET DRIVE 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 840 LIGHTHSE PLANTE 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 850 LIGHTHSE PLANTE 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 882 LIGHTHSE PLANTE 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 106 7TH ST PARK 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 131 5222 308 16TH ST. 0.00 37.85101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 351 5222 600 PINE AVE FIRE 0.00 43.73101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 CENTRAL 4 IN FIRE 0.00 43.73101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 411 5222 165 FOREST AVE FIRE 0.00 43.73101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 201 5222 304 16TH ST FIRE 0.00 81.40101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 515 JUNIPERO 0.00 230.66101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 351 5222 600 PINE 0.00 232.19101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 263 GROVE ACRES 0.00 263.95101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 863 OCEANVIEW IRRG 0.00 273.74101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 1051 OCEANVIEW IRRG 0.00 273.74101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 707 OCEANVIEW−NAIAD 0.00 273.74101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 114 CALEDONIA PK 0.00 288.68101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 131 5222 300 FOREST 0.00 289.52101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 201 5222 304 16TH ST BDOM−FI 0.00 291.34101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 301 5222 580 PINE 0.00 307.15101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 930 SINEX 0.00 326.69101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 401 5222 550 CENTRAL 0.00 356.37101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 391 OCEANVW−BERWICK 0.00 543.95101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 B & G 15% 0.00 60.04101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 501 5222 SUNSET−CORPYARD18% 0.00 72.05101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 610 OCEANVW IRRIGPK 0.00 1,028.73101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 620 OCEANVIEW/BATH 0.00 1,123.40101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 616 OCEANVW−SWIM PL 0.00 1,197.50101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 501 5222 MECH 5% 0.00 20.01101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 201 5222 300 FOREST FIRE−50% 0.00 21.86101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 131 5222 300 FOREST FIRE−50% 0.00 21.87101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 585 LAUREL 0.00 89.18101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 130 LIGHTHOUSE IRRI 0.00 89.18101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 1025 MORSE−PLATT PK 0.00 89.18101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 165 FOREST−MUSEUM 0.00 139.78101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 611 CENTRAL AVE 0.00 144.35101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 980 PIEDMONT BALL P 0.00 171.84 PG CC 2/16/22
79 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 15
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 100 OCEANVW IRRIG 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 196 OCEANVW IRRIG 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 150 FOREST−JEWELL P 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 429 LIGHTHOUSE IRRG 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 131 5222 300 FOREST AVE 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 711 OCEANVIEW IRRG 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 230 17−MILE DRIVE 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 503 5222 619 OCEANVIEW IRRIG 0.00 171.84101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 421 5222 616 OCEANVIEW IRRG 0.00 171.84TOTAL CHECK 0.00 10,501.97101 101794 01/28/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5291 AFLAC P/T 0.00 69.24101 101794 01/28/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5200 AFLAC PREM 0.00 717.32101 101794 01/28/22 2952 AFLAC 01 202 DED:5201 AFLAC P/T 0.00 1,776.62TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,563.18101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:531 HEALTH 0.00 350.62101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:109 HEALTH 0.00 507.91101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:115 HEALTH 0.00 701.23101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2074 HEALTH 0.00 811.50101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2072 HEALTH 0.00 862.50101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:120 HEALTH 0.00 1,015.82101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2225 HEALTH INS 0.00 1,057.01101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:1 HEALTH 0.00 1,057.01101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:0563 HEALTH FAM 0.00 1,114.18101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:118 HEALTH 0.00 1,148.70101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2 HEALTH 0.00 1,473.34101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:533 HEALTH 0.00 1,823.20101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:110 HEALTH 0.00 2,031.62101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2071 HEALTH 0.00 2,397.00101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:103 HEALTH 0.00 2,454.34101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:102 HEALTH 0.00 2,748.24101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:104 HEALTH 0.00 3,506.15101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:105 HEALTH 0.00 3,646.40101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:106 HEALTH 0.00 3,699.57101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:2073 HEALTH FAM 0.00 4,438.00101 101795 01/28/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 01 202 DED:100 HEALTH 0.00 6,342.12TOTAL CHECK 0.00 43,186.46101 101796 01/28/22 2939 CALPERS LONG TERM C 01 202 DED:6000 LTC 0.00 94.89101 101797 01/28/22 3134 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:3300 AFLAC DEP 0.00 290.10101 101797 01/28/22 3134 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:3301 AFLAC MED 0.00 2,578.02TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,868.12101 101798 01/28/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*FM MEDICARE 0.00 9,639.68101 101798 01/28/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*SCA STATE TAX 0.00 13,568.55101 101798 01/28/22 3393 EFT 01 202 DED:*FT FEDERAL TX 0.00 35,584.34TOTAL CHECK 0.00 58,792.57101 101799 01/28/22 2946 PACIFIC GROVE CITY 01 202 DED:7000 ASSOC DUES 0.00 783.75101 101799 01/28/22 2946 PACIFIC GROVE CITY 01 202 DED:7003 ASSOC DUES 0.00 23.75 PG CC 2/16/22
80 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 16
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNTTOTAL CHECK 0.00 807.50101 101800 01/28/22 2938 MASS MUTUAL (457 PL 01 202 DED:3999 ROTH IRA 0.00 765.00101 101800 01/28/22 2938 MASS MUTUAL (457 PL 01 202 DED:4000 DEF COMP 0.00 13,811.57TOTAL CHECK 0.00 14,576.57101 101801 01/28/22 2936 MTRY COUNTY DEPT OF 01 202 DED:0023 GARNISH 0.00 236.30101 101802 01/28/22 2949 PACIFIC GROVE MANAG 01 202 DED:7203 ASSOC DUES 0.00 20.00101 101803 01/28/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1005 WORK COMP 0.00 1,177.95101 101803 01/28/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1010 WORK COMP 0.00 2,865.48101 101803 01/28/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1003 WORK COMP 0.00 5,860.19101 101803 01/28/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1006 WORK COMP 0.00 11.02101 101803 01/28/22 2051 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:1009 WORK COMP 0.00 62.15TOTAL CHECK 0.00 9,976.79101 101804 01/28/22 2052 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:7510 PERS REIMB 0.00 44.13101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2101 DENTAL 0.00 75.80101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2102 DENTAL 0.00 150.36101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:201 DENTAL 0.00 187.95101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:202 DENTAL 0.00 189.64101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:200 DENTAL 0.00 606.40101 101805 01/28/22 2053 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:2103 DENTAL FAM 0.00 663.74TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,873.89101 101806 01/28/22 2054 CITY OF PACIFIC GRO 01 202 DED:0005 SUTA 0.00 121.10101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0004 SURV BEN 0.00 82.77101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0022 PERS SP MS 0.00 113.35101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:08 PERS OTHER 0.00 382.52101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0018 PERS SP SF 0.00 531.66101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0009 PERS OTHER 0.00 995.98101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:07 PERS CITY 0.00 5,901.46101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0002 PERS 0.00 6,144.50101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0017 PERS RG SF 0.00 6,534.35101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0011 PERS ER SF 0.00 7,136.68101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0021 PERS REG M 0.00 7,319.28101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0020 PERS ER M3 0.00 8,416.00101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:01 PERS 0.00 11,644.43101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0006 PERS CITY 0.00 12,323.23101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:15 PERS−RETRO 0.00 16.85101 101807 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 DED:0025 PERS RT MS 0.00 51.95TOTAL CHECK 0.00 67,595.01101 101808 01/28/22 2943 POLICE OFFICERS ASS 01 202 DED:7205 ASSOC DUES 0.00 881.04101 101809 01/28/22 7956 STATE DISABILITY TA 01 202 DED:0026 SDI 0.00 3,707.59101 101810 01/28/22 3227 SHERIFF OF MONTEREY 01 202 DED:0014 WAGE ORDER 0.00 555.29 PG CC 2/16/22
81 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 17
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 01 − GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101811 01/28/22 8352 TRANSAMERICA EMPLOY 01 202 DED:5202 TRANSAMERI 0.00 627.08101 101812 01/28/22 4177 UNION BANK OF CALIF 01 202 DED:4005 PARS−457 0.00 647.83101 101813 01/28/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:301 VISION 0.00 75.00101 101813 01/28/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:300 VISION 0.00 216.38101 101813 01/28/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:2503 VISION FAM 0.00 285.01101 101813 01/28/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:2502 VISION 0.00 41.88101 101813 01/28/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 01 202 DED:302 VISION 0.00 60.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 678.27101 101814 01/27/22 3393 EFT 01 202 4TH QTR 21 − HARV A 0.00 39.92101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 131 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 10,250.00101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 401 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 10,333.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 201 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 12,333.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 505 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 16,583.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 351 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 88,862.58101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 301 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 105,500.00101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 101 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 416.68101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 133 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 2,333.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 502 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 2,583.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 501 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 3,166.67101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 421 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 4,833.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 121 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 8,916.67101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 503 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 9,083.33101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 513 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 250.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 275,445.91101 101816 01/28/22 2133 PERS 01 202 PPE 1/8/2022 0.00 31.16101 101817 01/31/22 2939 CALPERS LONG TERM C 01 202 1/1/2022 TO 1/15/20 0.00 49.37101 101817 01/31/22 2939 CALPERS LONG TERM C 01 202 12/16 TO 12/31/2021 0.00 49.37TOTAL CHECK 0.00 98.74101 V1072022 01/07/22 3835 REPUBLIC ELEVATOR, 411 5223 DOS 12/2/2021 CAR 1 0.00 814.21101 V1072022 01/07/22 3835 REPUBLIC ELEVATOR, 503 5223 QTR 1/01/22 − 3/31/ 0.00 1,363.05TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,177.26101 V1072023 01/07/22 2987 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 201 5201 PROF CONSULTANT SER 0.00 13,950.00101 V1212022 01/21/22 7708 BENJAMIN JENNINGS H 121 5428 CELL PHONE 12/21−1/ 0.00 213.55TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 1,186,794.35TOTAL FUND 0.00 1,186,794.35 PG CC 2/16/22
82 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 18
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 12 − FIRE EMERG EQUIP FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101627 01/07/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 DIPHEN CAPSULES 0.00 25.29101 101627 01/07/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 CPR MASKS/SURFACE W 0.00 200.45101 101627 01/07/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 SURFACE WIPES 0.00 119.58TOTAL CHECK 0.00 345.32101 101727 01/21/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 WIPES 0.00 948.14101 101727 01/21/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 0.00 906.04101 101727 01/21/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 IBUPROFEN/ASPRIN 0.00 21.07101 101727 01/21/22 3400 BOUND TREE MEDICAL, 355 5309 MEDICAL SUPPLIES 0.00 39.23TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,914.48TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 2,259.80TOTAL FUND 0.00 2,259.80 PG CC 2/16/22
83 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 19
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 15 − HOUSING FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101658 01/07/22 3807 MONTEREY COUNTY WEE 202 5221 CDBG PRE−APPLICATIO 0.00 217.62101 101677 01/07/22 1758 THE MONTEREY COUNTY 202 5221 CDBG PROGRAM 2−16−2 0.00 448.61101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 204 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 833.33TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 1,499.56TOTAL FUND 0.00 1,499.56 PG CC 2/16/22
84 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 20
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 18 − GAS TAX FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101637 01/07/22 3566 DAVE’S REPAIR SERVI 508 5276 FUEL HOSE & FILTER 0.00 407.36101 101637 01/07/22 3566 DAVE’S REPAIR SERVI 508 5276 CERTIFICATION/TESTI 0.00 4,300.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,707.36101 101667 01/07/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 508 5222 PW 0.00 6,620.55101 101760 01/21/22 1786 MONTEREY PENINSULA 508 5201 POTHOLE 3 LOCATIONS 0.00 4,975.00101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 508 5311 STRT 0.00 374.29101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 508 5222 ST FUND 50% 0.00 200.11101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 508 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 1,666.67TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 18,543.98TOTAL FUND 0.00 18,543.98 PG CC 2/16/22
85 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 21
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 27 − LIGHTHOUSE MAINT.& IMPV. CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101626 01/07/22 5363 AT&T CALNET 3 413 5212 LIGHTHOUSE 0.00 22.91101 101674 01/07/22 2448 SENTRY ALARM SYSTEM 413 5223 POINT PINOS LH 0.00 160.11101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 413 5223 DISCOUNT 0.00 −157.53101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 413 5223 LIGHTHOUSE 0.00 2.15101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 413 5223 LIGHTHOUSE 0.00 3.03101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 413 5223 LIGHTHOUSE 0.00 24.71TOTAL CHECK 0.00 −127.64101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 413 5222 90 ASILOMAR 0.00 46.93TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 102.31TOTAL FUND 0.00 102.31 PG CC 2/16/22
86 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 22
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 41 − YOUNT INCOME FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 510 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 166.67TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 166.67TOTAL FUND 0.00 166.67 PG CC 2/16/22
87 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 23
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 43 − SLESF FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101742 01/21/22 9033 ENTERPRISE FM TRUST 304 5225 LEASED VEHICLES 0.00 2,125.60101 101783 01/21/22 9004 VICTORY TACTICAL GE 304 5275 HELMETS 0.00 1,030.45TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 3,156.05TOTAL FUND 0.00 3,156.05 PG CC 2/16/22
88 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 24
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 46 − STRONG DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101775 01/21/22 1758 THE MONTEREY COUNTY 461 6021 ADA//CIP21−05 0.00 307.57TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 307.57TOTAL FUND 0.00 307.57 PG CC 2/16/22
89 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 25
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 63 − CAPITAL IMPROV PROJ FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101661 01/07/22 1786 MONTEREY PENINSULA 631 6031 FY21/22 POINT PINOS 0.00 142,443.00101 101670 01/07/22 2241 R & S ERECTION OF M 631 6021 GARAGE DOOR REPLACE 0.00 8,632.56101 101725 01/21/22 4036 AURUM CONSULTING EN 631 6021 PW YARD ELECTRICAL 0.00 1,625.00101 101787 01/21/22 9401 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN, 631 6021 TRC 21−02 0.00 1,219.85101 101789 01/21/22 9325 ZANDER DESIGN 631 6031 CIP 18−46 0.00 11,456.90TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 165,377.31TOTAL FUND 0.00 165,377.31 PG CC 2/16/22
90 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 26
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 70 − EMP BENEFIT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101691 01/11/22 632 VISION SERVICE PLAN 703 5123 JAN 2022 RET & CHGS 0.00 195.21101 101692 01/11/22 8211 STANDARD INSURANCE 703 5123 JAN 2021 PREMIUMS 0.00 2,572.07101 101716 01/13/22 1 CALPERS HEALTH 703 5123 JAN 2022 RET & CHGS 0.00 10,486.79101 101816 01/28/22 2133 PERS 703 5123 FEE 0.00 200.00TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 13,454.07TOTAL FUND 0.00 13,454.07 PG CC 2/16/22
91 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 27
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 71 − WORKERS COMP FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 701 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 583.33TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 583.33TOTAL FUND 0.00 583.33 PG CC 2/16/22
92 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 28
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 72 − LIABILITY INS FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101737 01/21/22 3451 DE LAY & LAREDO 702 5201 DEC 2021 LEGAL SERV 0.00 8,193.20101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 702 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 416.67TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 8,609.87TOTAL FUND 0.00 8,609.87 PG CC 2/16/22
93 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 29
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 74 − LOCAL WATER PROJECT CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101664 01/07/22 9294 MOTOR CONTROLS INC. 741 5201 MODEM SERVICE 0.00 650.00101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 741 5201 WATER PLANT (LWP) 0.00 76.10101 101736 01/21/22 5959 STATE WATER RESOURC 741 5802 D1501021−550−0 0.00 157,809.88101 101736 01/21/22 5959 STATE WATER RESOURC 741 5801 D1501021−550−0 0.00 48,638.40TOTAL CHECK 0.00 206,448.28101 101766 01/21/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 741 5222 LWP 0.00 2,534.85101 101769 01/21/22 7716 PERC WATER CORPORAT 741 5201 LWP O&M 0.00 23,265.29101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 741 5222 1313 OCEAN VIEW BLV 0.00 840.74TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 233,815.26TOTAL FUND 0.00 233,815.26 PG CC 2/16/22
94 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 30
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 75 − CEMETERY FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101615 01/07/22 6411 QUADIENT LEASING US 601 5225 MAIL MACHINE 0.00 3.22101 101623 01/07/22 156 ASCO PACIFIC INCORP 601 5351 STOCK VASES−CEMETER 0.00 504.22101 101631 01/07/22 8796 CEMSITES 601 5291 LOGO DEED INVOICES 0.00 700.00101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 601 5309 0.00 73.16101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 601 5309 0.00 28.66101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 601 5309 0.00 28.66101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 601 5309 0.00 43.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 173.48101 101652 01/07/22 8118 LLORIN−VELASQUEZ CO 601 5201 DECEMBER 2021 0.00 2,625.00101 101662 01/07/22 1801 MONTEREY TIRE SERVI 601 5226 LOOSE CART 0.00 38.93101 101662 01/07/22 1801 MONTEREY TIRE SERVI 601 5226 LOOSE CART 0.00 241.56TOTAL CHECK 0.00 280.49101 101680 01/07/22 2786 VERIZON WIRELESS 601 5212 CEM 0.00 20.02101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 73.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 601 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80TOTAL CHECK 0.00 337.20101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 601 5309 CEMETERY 0.00 69.58101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 601 5309 CEMETERY 0.00 134.81TOTAL CHECK 0.00 204.39101 101748 01/21/22 9545 LAURIE HUGHES 75 4481 REFUND OVER PAYMENT 0.00 1,677.00101 101749 01/21/22 1568 M & S BUILDING SUPP 601 5309 RETURNED CONCRETE 8 0.00 −51.13101 101749 01/21/22 1568 M & S BUILDING SUPP 601 5309 CONCRETE 80# PREMIX 0.00 51.13101 101749 01/21/22 1568 M & S BUILDING SUPP 601 5309 MORTAR 60# PREMIXED 0.00 60.50TOTAL CHECK 0.00 60.50101 101753 01/21/22 9544 MISSION MORTUARY 601 5309 BLACK LINER DOMED L 0.00 322.00101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 601 5227 CEM 0.00 215.72101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 601 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 601 5311 CEM 0.00 137.77101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 601 5222 1254 DELMONTECEM70% 0.00 202.98101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 601 5222 CEM 4% 0.00 16.01TOTAL CHECK 0.00 218.99 PG CC 2/16/22
95 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 31
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 75 − CEMETERY FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 601 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 1,166.67TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 8,665.92TOTAL FUND 0.00 8,665.92 PG CC 2/16/22
96 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 32
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 76 − SEWER FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101625 01/07/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 53.44101 101625 01/07/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 53.44101 101625 01/07/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 53.44TOTAL CHECK 0.00 160.32101 101634 01/07/22 590 COAST COUNTIES TRUC 611 5227 UNIT 44 0.00 1,424.75101 101644 01/07/22 3378 DON CHAPIN CO., INC 612 6051 CIP 22−01 0.00 1,937.50101 101647 01/07/22 1199 HAYWARD LUMBER COMP 611 5309 0.00 165.27101 101659 01/07/22 1798 MONTEREY ONE WATER 611 5201 3RD QTR GREASE/STOR 0.00 2,604.36101 101660 01/07/22 9292 MONTEREY ONE WATER 611 5201 ANNUAL LIFT STATION 0.00 19,075.50101 101681 01/07/22 6777 WALLACE GROUP 612 6051 CARRY FORWARD− CONS 0.00 460.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 73.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 71.80101 101687 01/07/22 1694 MISSION UNIFORM SER 611 5309 LINEN AND UNIFORM C 0.00 12.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 337.20101 101690 01/07/22 2034 PACIFIC GROVE HARDW 611 5309 SEWER 0.00 10.86101 101718 01/18/22 4943 US BANK 611 5309 GHO CC DEC 2021 0.00 783.00101 101723 01/21/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 33.78101 101723 01/21/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 33.78101 101723 01/21/22 6154 AT&T 611 5212 SEWER ALARM 0.00 33.78TOTAL CHECK 0.00 101.34101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 611 5227 SEWER 47 0.00 35.88101 101755 01/21/22 1714 MONTEREY AUTO SUPPL 611 5223 SEWER 0.00 20.52TOTAL CHECK 0.00 56.40101 101763 01/21/22 1896 NEILL ENGINEERS COR 611 5201 RETAINER JANUARY 20 0.00 1,000.00101 101766 01/21/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 611 5222 PW 0.00 58.68101 101766 01/21/22 2024 PACIFIC GAS & ELECT 611 5222 PW 0.00 52.62TOTAL CHECK 0.00 111.30101 101770 01/21/22 2219 PURE WATER 611 5309 WATER SERVICE 0.00 19.25101 101773 01/21/22 1768 STURDY OIL COMPANY 611 5311 SEWER 0.00 514.34101 101780 01/21/22 2759 USABLUEBOOK 611 5309 SIGNET INTERGRAL FL 0.00 1,468.98 PG CC 2/16/22
97 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 33
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 76 − SEWER FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 611 5222 100 OCEANVW IRRIG 0.00 35.93101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 611 5222 SEWER 8% 0.00 32.03101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 611 5222 1273 CRESPI POND 50 0.00 57.78TOTAL CHECK 0.00 125.74101 101815 01/27/22 2133 PERS 611 5145 JAN 2022 UAL 0.00 9,250.00TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 39,606.11TOTAL FUND 0.00 39,606.11 PG CC 2/16/22
98 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 34
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 77 − GOLF FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101778 01/21/22 7381 UMPQUA BANK 622 5801 INTEREST OWING 0.00 43,687.17101 101778 01/21/22 7381 UMPQUA BANK 622 5802 PRINCIPAL 0.00 92,361.29TOTAL CHECK 0.00 136,048.46101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 621 5222 1254 DELMONTEGOLF30 0.00 86.99101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 621 5222 77 ASILOMAR FIRE SV 0.00 81.40101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 625 5222 77 ASILOMAR GOLF HS 0.00 1,841.71101 101793 01/27/22 438 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN 621 5222 1273 CRESPI POND 50 0.00 57.78TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,067.88TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 138,116.34TOTAL FUND 0.00 138,116.34 PG CC 2/16/22
99 of 470
SUPERION PAGE NUMBER: 35
DATE: 02/10/2022 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ACCTPA21TIME: 12:44:00 CHECK REGISTER − BY FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.yr=’22’ and transact.period=’7’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/22 FUND − 86 − CEMETERY ENDOWMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME DIVISION ACCNT −−−−DESCRIPTION−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT101 101748 01/21/22 9545 LAURIE HUGHES 86 4480 REFUND OVER PAYMENT 0.00 72.00TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 72.00TOTAL FUND 0.00 72.00TOTAL REPORT 0.00 1,821,130.50 PG CC 2/16/22
100 of 470
Agenda No. 8 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Core Revenue Report Status for January 2022
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Core Revenue Status Report for January 2022

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove’s General Fund revenues are primarily derived from Property Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, and Sales and Use Tax revenues. In the Fiscal Year 21/22 Adopted Budget, it was estimated the City would receive $17.2 million or 64% of the General Fund revenues from these three tax sources.

Details on the budgeted amounts and revenues to date for the current fiscal year are included in Attachment 1.

Additional information related to the City's revenues and expenditures will be provided as part of the mid-year budget process and the five-year forecast. This information is anticipated to be presented at a Council Meeting in early March.

OPTIONS
N/A – this is informational only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue needs.

Attachments
Core Revenue Report - January 2022
PG CC 2/16/22
101 of 470
Attachment 1
Core Revenue Report
January 2022
The following tables include the FY21/22 budget and year to date revenues. The receipts represent funds received to date.

PROPERTY TAX
Property Tax is the first largest source of the General Fund revenue. The City typically receives property tax payments in December, April, and June. Unlike other tax revenues, property taxes were not impacted by COVID-19. The City will receive its first two property tax payments for FY21/22 in December 2021 and April 2022, with an additional minor payment to be received in June 2022. The following table presents FY21/22 budget, and revenues received to date.

Property Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Amended Budget FY21/22 8,418,000 4,877,380 57.9%

TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is the General Fund’s second largest source of revenue which the City receives on a monthly basis. Unlike property taxes, TOT was significantly impacted by COVID-19. The following table presents FY21/22 budget and revenues received to date. While revenues have not reached their levels prior to COVID-19, the Fiscal Year 21/22 revenues are recovering at a steady rate. A budget amendment will be requested at mid-year to reflect the increased performance.

Transient Occupancy Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Amended Budget FY21/22 4,703,000 3,267,989 69.5%
The City receives transient occupancy tax in the month following the stay. The revenues received in January is for December TOT Revenue.

The following table shows a monthly breakdown of TOT revenues when compared to the same month last year. The reduction in the 2020/21 TOT in December and January may primarily resulted from temporary COVID-19 restrictions. Also noted is the decline in the March 2019/20 TOT, due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Lodging Period 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Net Difference
July 839,162 289,435 673,475 384,040
August 807,047 340,019 730,578 390,559
September 608,652 327,958 578,129 250,171
October 588,842 347,103 475,290 128,187
November 485,652 216,516 431,862 215,346
December 364,933 90,066 378,655 288,589
January 372,122 109,118
February 409,906 205,512
March 145,558 334,004
April 22,362 379,613
May 56,465 428,612
June 151,029 518,002
4,851,730 3,585,958 3,267,989 1,656,892
January 2022 TOT Payments are anticipated to be received late February 2022 PG CC 2/16/22
102 of 470

SALES AND USE TAX
Sales and Use tax is the third largest source of the City’s General Fund revenues. The City receives a 1% Bradley Burns Tax and a 1% Measure U Transactions and Use Tax.

The impact of COVID-19 on the Sales and Use tax revenues has been less significant when compared to TOT. The following table presents FY21/22 budget and revenues received to date.

Sales and Use Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Amended Budget FY21/22 4,109,000 1,732,867 42.2%
In FY19/20, the City received sales tax monthly; however, two payments were advances, which were based on estimated sales, prior period tax receipts, adjustments, and current distributions. This was followed by a true-up within each quarter. Due to this methodology, the advance monthly tax contributions were not truly representative of actual performance.

In FY20/21, the State changed its tax collection methodology. The State now calculates a factor for each agency based on how the agency’s sales tax performed last year to the statewide total, and then applies that factor to the total statewide prepayments they received for that month. If statewide prepayments are tracking higher than the agency’s local sales, this could inflate the two advances. Additionally, the higher advances could also represent audit cases or late payments that they also processed during that month. This new methodology contributes to higher advance payments, with a lower true-up amount.

The impact of COVID-19 on the Sales and Use tax revenues has been less significant when compared to TOT. The following table presents FY21/22 budget and revenues received to date.

Tax Return Period 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Net Difference July Advance 373,338 358,945 303,144 (55,801)
August Advance 439,453 427,105 507,200 80,095
September True-up 376,610 243,269 287,224 43,955
October Advance 297,095 343,188 311,118 (32,070)
November Advance 323,622 333,869 324,181 (9,688)
December True-up 496,186 302,359
January Advance 244,631 281,830
February Advance 322,132 339,550
March True-up 171,312 239,864
April Advance 241,956 314,606
May Advance 398,893 395,212
June True-Up 240,350 481,058
3,925,578 4,060,855 1,732,867 26,491
December 2021 payments are anticipated to be received in late February as the State pays the City two months in arrears (1) The October Fiscal Year 19/20 amount includes an annual sales tax payment of $50,983. This represents an annual remittance for select businesses that are within the shared taxing jurisdictions of Monterey and Pacific Grove.

PG CC 2/16/22
103 of 470
Agenda No. 9 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive report of emergency directives/modifications.

DISCUSSION
The City Manager during this Local Emergency is authorized to directly mitigate effects of the Local Emergency to protect life or property.

This report apprises the City Council of emergency directives taken under the continuing local emergency proclaimed by Resolution 20-007. This report fulfills the City Council’s review obligation under that Resolution and Government Code 8630. This agenda item also enables ratification of select actions taken since the City Council’s last review.

City expenditures for legal services related to COVID-19 issues (specifically to related to COVID 19-COM (Communications); COVID 19-TRN (Training); COVID 19-LAW (Legal Support); and COVID-19 (Other)) are eligible for State and Federal Emergency Service reimbursement, including but not limited to FEMA or other emergency grant funding.

Actions not subject to Ratification. Since the time of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, April 3, 2020, the City Manager has taken the following new or modified actions pursuant to the Emergency Proclamation:

None to report at this time.

No action is necessary with respect to the above new or modified measures, as each is responsive to requirements of the revised Monterey County Shelter in Place Order falling within the regular management discretion of the City Manager.

Actions subject to Ratification. Certain mitigation measures that have been enacted by the City Manager in response to the Monterey County Shelter in Place Order issued Friday, May 8, 2020, and in accord with Council’s Local Emergency under Article 19, subparagraph l, of the Pacific Grove City Charter, and Chapter 3.20 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), are subject to ratification.

Any mitigation measures that qualify are subject to ratification as required by Government Code 8630 and City Council Resolution 20-007, and are listed below:

PG CC 2/16/22
104 of 470
and City Council Resolution 20-007, and are listed below:

1. None to report at this time.

Discussion of Circumstances Needing Emergency Response. The discussion part of this item allows comment on circumstances which may benefit from further or different emergency responses. Matters identified will be referred to the City Manager for appropriate consideration in accord with the Emergency Management System protocols set by PGMC Chapter 3.20. These delegate exclusive emergency management response authority to the City Manager.

CEQA Exemption. Actions taken to prevent or mitigate an emergency are exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15260 of the CEQA Guidelines.

OPTIONS
Actions not subject to ratification are reported for information only.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact in receiving the report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PG CC 2/16/22
105 of 470
Agenda No. 9 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Proposed Contract Amendment and Reimbursement Agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. based on the Scope of Work and Cost Estimate provided for preparation of a revised Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) relating to a development project located at 1661 Sunset Drive.

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2021, at a noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission received testimony and approved an Architectural Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Parcel Merger (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) and certified the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the demolition of an existing home, the merger of two (2) parcels and the development of a new single-family residence. The Planning Commission's agenda report can be viewed on the City's website. The home proposed and approved for demolition had previously been determined, through the City's Initial Historic Screening (IHS) process, to be ineligible for the City's Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and, therefore, not a historic resource. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing, an attorney representing a neighbor submitted a letter which included a historic assessment prepared by a local architectural historian, Kent Seavey, that contradicted the previous report utilized for the IHS process. Additionally, the neighbor filed an appeal within the appeal period following the Commission's action on August 12th.

Per Section 15064(g) of the CEQA Guidelines, after application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(f), and in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.

Given that two (2) local, notable expert architectural historians provided opposing expert opinions on the historicity of the home in question, the Community Development Dept. (CDD) determined that an EIR needed to be prepared. Based on this determination, on November 17, 2021, CDD brought before the City Council a contract with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to prepare a Focused EIR for the project at PG CC 2/16/22
106 of 470
1661 Sunset Drive. The City Council approved the contract.

After approval of the contract for a Focused EIR, the applicant (Elstob Family Investments LP) decided to retain rather than demolish the existing on-site structures. Due to this change of project scope which is anticipated to eliminate a potential significant and unavoidable impact, CDD determined that a Focused EIR is no longer required and requested Rincon Consultants, Inc. submit a scope of work and cost estimate (attached) to revise the previously-prepared Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND). Following completion of the revised IS-MND, this project will be returned to the Planning Commission with the revised CEQA document for final action on the permits. As a result of the amended project, the neighbor's appeal will be nullified.

The draft Professional Services contract and Reimbursement Agreement are attached.

OPTIONS
The Council could provide alternative direction to Staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Given that the costs associated with the preparation of the revised IS-MND will be born by the applicant, there is no financial impact on the City.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Draft Contract, Scope, and Cost Estimate
Reimbursement Agreement
PG CC 2/16/22
107 of 470
1 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (OVER $40,000)1
This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is made by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter “City”) and Rincon Consultants, Inc., (hereinafter “CONTRACTOR”).

In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The City hereby engages CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to perform, the services described in Exhibit A in conformity with the terms of this Agreement. The services are generally described as follows: Preparation of a revised (biological and cultural resources) initial study/mitigated negative declaration for the 1661 Sunset Drive project, Pacific Grove, California.

2. PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $ 58,841.00.1

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is from December 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both CONTRACTOR and City and with City signing last, and CONTRACTOR may not commence work before City signs this Agreement.

4. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS/EXHIBITS. The following attached exhibits are incorporated herein by reference and constitute a part of this Agreement:

Exhibit A: Scope Amendment Request for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California (dated January 14, 2022)

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

5.01. CONTRACTOR warrants that CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR’s agents, employees, and subcontractors performing services under this Agreement are specially trained, experienced, competent, and appropriately licensed to perform the work and deliver the services required under this Agreement and are not employees of the City, or immediate family of an employee of the City.

5.02. CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, and subcontractors shall perform all work in a safe and skillful manner and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. All work performed under this Agreement that is required by law to be performed or supervised by licensed personnel shall be performed in accordance with such licensing requirements.

5.03. CONTRACTOR shall furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not use City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement.

1 Approved by the Pacific Grove City Council on __________________.

PG CC 2/16/22
108 of 470
2 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

6. PAYMENT CONDITIONS.

6.01. CONTRACTOR shall submit to the Contract Administrator an invoice on a form acceptable to City.

If not otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR may submit such invoice monthly or at the completion of each phase of the project, as provided on page 6 of the proposal, but in any event, not later than 30 days after completion of services. The invoice shall set forth the amounts claimed by CONTRACTOR for the previous period, together with an itemized basis for the amounts claimed, and such other information pertinent to the invoice as the City may require. The Contract Administrator or his or her designee shall certify the invoice, either in the requested amount or in such other amount as the City approves in conformity with this Agreement, and shall promptly submit such invoice to the City Auditor-Controller for payment. The City Auditor-Controller shall pay the amount certified within 30 days of receiving the certified invoice.

6.02. CONTRACTOR shall not receive reimbursement for travel.

7. TERMINATION.

7.01. During the term of this Agreement, the City may terminate the Agreement, with or without cause, by giving written notice of termination to the CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of termination. Such notice shall set forth the effective date of termination. In the event of such termination, CONTRACTOR shall cease immediately all work in progress.

7.02. CONTRACTOR may terminate this Agreement at any time upon thirty (30) days' written notice of termination to City.

7.03. If either CONTRACTOR or City fail to perform any material obligation under this Agreement, then, in addition to any other remedies, either CONTRACTOR or City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice.

7.04. Upon termination of this Agreement by either CONTRACTOR or City, all property belonging exclusively to City which is in CONTRACTOR’s possession shall be returned to City. CONTRACTOR shall furnish to City a final invoice for work performed and expenses incurred by CONTRACTOR, prepared as set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement. This final invoice shall be reviewed and paid in the same manner as set forth in Section 6 of this Agreement.

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

8.01. As respects all acts or omissions which do not arise directly out of the performance of professional services, including but not limited to those acts or omissions normally covered by general and automobile liability insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses whatsoever (including damages to property and injuries to or death of persons, court costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees) occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Agreement, and from any and all claims, liabilities, and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation for damage, injury, or death to the extent caused by CONTRACTOR’s negligence, negligent acts, errors or omissions.
❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9. INSURANCE.

9.01. Insurance Coverage Requirements: Without limiting CONTRACTOR’s duty to indemnify, CONTRACTOR shall maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with the following minimum limits of liability:

PG CC 2/16/22
109 of 470
3 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
Commercial general liability insurance, no less broad than Insurance Services Office (ISO) CG 00 01, including but not limited to premises and operations, including coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability, Broadform Property Damage, Independent Contractors, Products/Completed Operations, with minimum limits: $1,000,000 per Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate; $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. The required limits may be provided by a combination of General Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. If CONTRACTOR maintains higher limits than the specified minimum limits, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by CONTRACTOR.
❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Business automobile liability insurance, covering all motor vehicles, including owned, leased, non-owned, and hired vehicles, used in providing services under this Agreement, with a combined single limit for Bodily Injury and Property Damage of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Workers’ Compensation Insurance, if CONTRACTOR employs others in the performance of this Agreement, in accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with Employer’s Liability limits not less than $1,000,000 each person, $1,000,000 each accident and $1,000,000 each disease. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

Professional liability insurance, if required for the professional services being provided, (e.g., those persons authorized by a license to engage in a business or profession regulated by the California Business and Professions Code), in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate, to cover liability for malpractice or errors or omissions made in the course of rendering professional services. If professional liability insurance is written on a “claims-made” basis rather than an occurrence basis, the retroactive date shall be no later than the commencement of the work. Coverage applicable to the work performed under this Agreement shall be continued for three (3) years after completion of the work. Such continuation coverage may be provided by one of the following: (1) renewal of the existing policy; (2) an extended reporting period endorsement; or (3) replacement insurance with a retroactive date no later than the commencement of the work under this Agreement. ❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

9.02. Other Insurance Requirements. All insurance required by this Agreement shall be with a company acceptable to the City and issued and executed by an admitted insurer authorized to transact Insurance business in the State of California. Unless otherwise specified by this Agreement, all such insurance shall be written on an occurrence basis, or, if the policy is not written on an occurrence basis, such policy with the coverage required herein shall continue in effect for a period of three years following the date CONTRACTOR completes its performance of services under this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, CONTRACTOR shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should CONTRACTOR fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure such insurance at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost and expense.

Commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall provide an endorsement naming the City of Pacific Grove, its officers, agents, and employees as Additional Insureds with respect to liability arising out of the CONTRACTOR’S work, including ongoing and completed operations, and shall further provide that PG CC 2/16/22
110 of 470
4 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
such insurance is primary insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and that the insurance of the Additional Insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by the CONTRACTOR’S insurance. The required endorsement form for Commercial General Liability Additional Insured is ISO Form CG 20 10 11-85 or CG 20 10 10 01 in tandem with CG 20 37 10 01 (2000). The required endorsement form for Automobile Additional Insured endorsement is ISO Form CA 20 48 02 99.

The general liability policy shall cover inter-insured suits and include a “separation of Insureds” or “severability” clause which treats each insured separately.

CONTRACTOR shall provide to City an endorsement that the insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.

Prior to the execution of this Agreement by the City, CONTRACTOR shall file certificates of insurance with the City’s contract administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division, showing that the CONTRACTOR has in effect the insurance required by this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR shall file a new or amended certificate of insurance within five calendar days after any change is made in any insurance policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file. Acceptance or approval of insurance shall in no way modify or change the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect.

CONTRACTOR shall at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in force the insurance coverage required under this Agreement and shall send, without demand by City, annual certificates to City’s Contract Administrator and City’s Contracts/Purchasing Division. If the certificate is not received by the expiration date, City shall notify CONTRACTOR and CONTRACTOR shall have five calendar days to send in the certificate, evidencing no lapse in coverage during the interim. Failure by CONTRACTOR to maintain such insurance is a default of this Agreement which entitles City, at its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement immediately.

10. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY.

10.01. Confidentiality. CONTRACTOR and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with any and all federal, state, and local laws which provide for the confidentiality of records and other information. CONTRACTOR shall not disclose any confidential records or other confidential information received from the City or prepared in connection with the performance of this Agreement, unless City specifically permits CONTRACTOR to disclose such records or information. CONTRACTOR shall promptly transmit to City any and all requests for disclosure of any such confidential records or information. CONTRACTOR shall not use any confidential information gained by CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement except for the sole purpose of carrying out CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Agreement.

10.02. City Records. When this Agreement expires or terminates, CONTRACTOR shall return to City any City records which CONTRACTOR used or received from City to perform services under this Agreement.

10.03. Maintenance of Records. CONTRACTOR shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and City rules and regulations related to services performed under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain such records for a period of at least three years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the three year period, then CONTRACTOR shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

10.04. Access to and Audit of Records. The City shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors related to services provided under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of PG CC 2/16/22
111 of 470
5 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
the City or as part of any audit of the City, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

10.05. Royalties and Inventions. City shall have a royalty-free, exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, and use, and authorize others to do so, all original computer programs, writings, sound recordings, pictorial reproductions, drawings, and other works of similar nature produced in the course of or under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not publish any such material without the prior written approval of City.

11. NON-DISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR, and its subcontractors, shall not unlawfully discriminate against any person because of race, religious creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age (over 40), or sexual orientation, either in CONTRACTOR’s employment practices or in the furnishing of services to recipients. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of its employees and applicants for employment and all persons receiving and requesting services are free of such discrimination. CONTRACTOR and any subcontractor shall, in the performance of this Agreement, fully comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination. The provision of services primarily or exclusively to such target population as may be designated in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be prohibited discrimination.

12. COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS OF STATE OR FEDERAL GRANT. If this Agreement has been or will be funded with monies received by the City pursuant to a contract with the state or federal government in which the City is the grantee, CONTRACTOR will comply with all the provisions of said contract, to the extent applicable to CONTRACTOR as a subgrantee under said contract, and said provisions shall be deemed a part of this Agreement, as though fully set forth herein. Upon request, City will deliver a copy of said contract to CONTRACTOR, at no cost to CONTRACTOR.

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. In the performance of work, duties, and obligations under this Agreement, CONTRACTOR is at all times acting and performing as an independent contractor and not as an employee of the City. No offer or obligation of permanent employment with the City or particular City department or agency is intended in any manner, and CONTRACTOR shall not become entitled by virtue of this Agreement to receive from City any form of employee benefits including but not limited to sick leave, vacation, retirement benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, insurance or disability benefits. CONTRACTOR shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including federal and state income taxes and social security, arising out of CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement. In connection therewith, CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold City harmless from any and all liability which City may incur because of CONTRACTOR’s failure to pay such taxes.

14. NOTICES. Notices required under this Agreement shall be delivered personally or by first-class, postage pre-paid mail to the City’s and CONTRACTOR’S contract administrators at the addresses listed below:

FOR CITY: FOR CONTRACTOR:

Alyson Hunter, AICP,
Community Development Dir.

Megan Jones, Principal
Name and Title Name and Title
300 Forest Avenue 2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Monterey, CA 93940
Address Address
PG CC 2/16/22
112 of 470
6 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

(831) 648-3127 (831) 333-0310
Phone Phone

15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

15.01. Conflict of Interest. CONTRACTOR represents that it presently has no interest and agrees not to acquire any interest during the term of this Agreement which would directly or indirectly conflict in any manner or to any degree with the full and complete performance of the professional services required to be rendered under this Agreement.

15.02. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by an instrument in writing signed by the City and the CONTRACTOR.

15.03. Waiver. Any waiver of any terms and conditions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the City and the CONTRACTOR. A waiver of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any other terms or conditions in this Agreement.

15.04. Contractor. The term “CONTRACTOR” as used in this Agreement includes CONTRACTOR’s officers, agents, and employees acting on CONTRACTOR’s behalf in the performance of this Agreement.

15.05. Disputes. CONTRACTOR shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute.

Contractor and the CITY hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers (whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

15.06. Assignment and Subcontracting. The CONTRACTOR shall not assign, sell, or otherwise transfer its interest or obligations in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. None of the services covered by this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior written approval of the City. Notwithstanding any such subcontract, CONTRACTOR shall continue to be liable for the performance of all requirements of this Agreement.

15.07. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and the rights, privileges, duties, and obligations of the City and CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, to the extent assignable or delegable, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors, permitted assigns, and heirs.

15.08. Compliance with Applicable Law. The parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations in performing this Agreement.

15.09. Headings. The headings are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret the terms of this Agreement.

15.10. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in each and all of the provisions of this Agreement.

15.11. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of California.

15.12. Non-exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is non-exclusive and both City and CONTRACTOR expressly reserve the right to contract with other entities for the same or similar services.

PG CC 2/16/22
113 of 470
7 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

15.13. Construction of Agreement. The City and CONTRACTOR agree that each party has fully participated in the review and revision of this Agreement and that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement.

15.14. Counterparts. This Agreement 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 Agreement.

15.15. Authority. Any individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City or the CONTRACTOR represents and warrants hereby that he or she has the requisite authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of such party and bind the party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

15.16. Integration. This Agreement, including the exhibits any documents incorporated by reference, represent the entire Agreement between the City and the CONTRACTOR with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral, between the City and the CONTRACTOR as of the effective date of this Agreement, which is the date that the City signs the Agreement.

15.17. Interpretation of Conflicting Provisions. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.

15.18 Severability. If any of the provisions contained in the Contract 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 Contract for any cause. If a part of this Contract is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Contract 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.

This space is left blank, intentionally.

PG CC 2/16/22
114 of 470
8 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONTRACTOR

By: Rincon Consultants, Inc.

City Mayor Contractor’s Business Name*
Date:

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

Department Head
Date:

Name and Title

Date:

By:

Approved as to Form (Signature of Secretary, Asst. Secretary, CFO, or Asst. Treasurer)*
By:

City Attorney Name and Title
Date:
2 Date:

Approved as to Fiscal Provisions
By:

Finance Date:

Approved as to Liability Provisions 3
By:

Risk Management Date:

City Agreement Number: ______________________________.

2 Approval by Finance necessary only if financial questions or issues raised in Council approval of agreement. 3 Approval by Risk Management is necessary only if changes are made in paragraph 8 or 9.

PG CC 2/16/22
115 of 470
9 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
*INSTRUCTIONS: If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, including limited liability and non-profit corporations, the full legal name of the corporation shall be set forth above together with the signatures of two specified officers. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, the name of the partnership shall be set forth above together with the signature of a partner who has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the partnership. If CONTRACTOR is contracting in an individual capacity, the individual shall set forth the name of the business, if any, and shall personally sign the Agreement.

PG CC 2/16/22
116 of 470
January 14,2022
Project No: 21-11891
Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
Community Development Department
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
via email: [email protected]
Subject: Scope Amendment Request for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California Dear Ms. Hunter:

The purpose of this letter is to request an amendment to the December 1, 2021 contract scope of work and budget between Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) and the City of Pacific Grove (city) for the proposed 1661 Sunset Drive Project. The current scope of work includes preparation of a Focused EIR.

Per City direction provided during the January 5, 2022 project kickoff meeting, the applicant intends to retain the existing on-site structures, which is anticipated to eliminate a potential significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, based on City direction, this amendment includes the preparation of a revised Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the project. The tasks associated with preparation of a revised IS-MND are outlined below, and are intended to replace the existing tasks associated with the Focused EIR scope of work.

Scope of Work
Task 1: Cultural Resources Peer Reviews1
Task 1.1: Historical Resources Peer Review and Evaluation A historic resources evaluation was prepared by Anthony Kirk in December of 2018, which included an evaluation of the existing on-site residence. The City received a comment letter from Kent Seavey in August 2021 that included a peer review of the 2018 report. The Seavey letter provided several comments, including the suggestion that a potentially historic adobe studio was located on the project site, but was not evaluated. A Rincon qualified architectural historian will review the December 2018 report completed by Anthony Kirk and the August 2021 Kent Seavey letter, to identify potential deficiencies in the original report and update the historic analysis accordingly. An update/response memorandum will be prepared to address deficiencies, if any, from the original report and to strengthen the cultural resources analysis defensibility for the EIR. The memorandum will also serve to address concerns outlined in the Seavey letter, where appropriate. Additional analysis is anticipated to include an evaluation of the adobe structure and preparation California Department of Parks and Recreation 1 This scope of work for this task is the same as under the current (Focused EIR) contract.

EXHIBIT A
PG CC 2/16/22
117 of 470
(DPR) forms for the site. The memorandum will also make recommendations related to impacts to historical resources and mitigation measures. Should the analysis of additional structures (beyond the adobe structure) be required, a change order would be necessary.

Task 1.2: Archaeological Resources Peer Review and Evaluation A Phase I archaeological resources assessment was prepared by Patricia Paramoure Archaeological Consulting in June 2020 and a Phase II resource evaluation was prepared by Patricia Paramoure and Charles Mikulik in March 2021. Rincon proposes to complete a peer review of these documents focused on the adequacy of analysis and soundness of conclusions of the reports and on the sufficiency of the reports to support CEQA analysis. A response memorandum will be prepared outlining any concerns and recommending revisions and/or additional work to resolve identified concerns. If deemed necessary and at the discretion of the City, Rincon can submit a scope augmentation to conduct additional work needed to fully address archaeological resources.

Task 2:Administrative Draft Initial Study
The applicant has revised the project description to retain the existing buildings on parcel APN 007-041- 033 and transfer the existing water meter to the proposed new single-family residence on APN 007-041- 033. Based on this revised project description and public comments received, Rincon will update the existing IS-MND. This will include revisions to the Description of the Project and known environmental issue areas of concern, Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. In addition, other sections of the ISMND will be updated and bolstered where needed, to address prior public comment and improve defensibility. This scope of work assumes that all issue areas will be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation, and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be warranted. The revised IS-MND will be prepared in accordance with the most recent CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. The following describes our approach to revising the IS-MND:

Project Description. The Draft IS-MND project description will be revised to reflect the retention of the existing buildings located on the project site and the transfer of the existing water meter to the new development. The project description will also be bolstered to provide project background information, including prior public review and hearing (i.e., opportunities for input), and to explain the difference between proposed project design features and mitigation measures (per prior comments on the IS-MND).

Aesthetics. This analysis will contain a qualitative discussion of long-term visual impacts including changes to visual character and alteration of views, that may occur as a result of the retention of the existing buildings on site. Applicable design guidelines will also be described. Mitigation for the maintenance of the buildings may be proposed to reduce impacts to the surrounding visual character.

Biological Resources. Rincon conducted a peer review of the Biological Evaluation prepared for the project site in June 2020 and concluded that additional evaluation of impacts to biological resources would be necessary to sufficiently support the CEQA analysis. Rincon will use the existing Biological Evaluation to provide background information on the project site and support the biological resources analysis. In addition, to confirm no new special-status species have been recorded in the project vicinity Rincon will prepare a desktop literature and agency database review. Rincon will review project plans, aerial imagery, agency databases (i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, PG CC 2/16/22
118 of 470
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Conservation database) as well as other relevant background information for context and understanding of the biological concerns related to the project.

Upon completion of the desktop analysis, Rincon will recommend any additional species-specific or protocol level studies necessary. The biological resources analysis will rely on information in the existing studies in lieu of a reconnaissance site visit and will not include seasonally timed or protocol surveys for rare plants or wildlife and does not include a formal jurisdictional delineation. This scope of work assumes no project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required. The impact analysis will be based on habitat assessment for species known to occur in the region. Rincon will utilize the findings of the literature review and desktop analysis to update the existing Initial Study with a bolstered impacts analysis and recommended enforceable, non-deferral mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources. Rincon understands the project site contains a potential historical resource and an archaeological resource. Using the previous cultural resources documentation prepared for the project, the peer reviews included under Task 1 above, as well as AB 52 consultation conducted by the City as part of the prior IS-MND, Rincon will identify potential impacts related to the preservation of the historical resource on site and impacts to archaeological resources associated with development of the second parcel, and present mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Mitigation measures related to the maintenance of the existing buildings to remain on site will also be developed to reduce significant impacts to existing resources, if necessary. If Task 1 identifies that additional work is necessary, such additional work (whether completed by Rincon or another firm) will be incorporated into the Initial Study section.

Hydrology and Water Quality. The hydrology and water quality analysis will evaluate potential impacts relating to hydrological conditions and flooding, as well as potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality. Rincon will revise the existing IS-MND analysis to account for increased impervious surfaces on the project site and further address potential impacts from increased impervious surfaces to the surrounding area.

Noise. The noise analysis will include evaluations of temporary impacts associated with project construction and long-term impacts associated with operation of the project. The analysis of temporary noise and vibration impacts associated with construction will be based on typical construction noise and vibration levels and standard noise and vibration attenuation factors.

Noise and vibration levels associated with construction activities will be quantified and projected at the nearest noise-sensitive land uses and compared to applicable thresholds.

Population and Housing. This analysis will consider the potential for future use of APN 007-041- 033 as a residence, to address prior public comments on the IS-MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. The revised project description includes the transfer of the existing water meter to the proposed new residence. This analysis will address California American Water requirements for the transfer of the water meter and if necessary, water supply requirements for the existing buildings. The evaluations of service systems will involve contact with the service providers.

PG CC 2/16/22
119 of 470
Cumulative Impacts. The IS-MND will include a discussion of cumulative impacts, relying on a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity.

Rincon will submit an electronic copy of the Administrative Draft IS-MND in Word format.

Task 3:Public Review Draft Initial Study
Rincon will respond to one round of consolidated City comments on the Administrative Draft IS-MND.

This document will be submitted in Microsoft Word with revisions shown in track changes. Upon receipt of any final comments on the revisions, Rincon will prepare a Draft IS-MND for publication. Any comments at this stage will be limited to minor typographical or formatting edits, if any. The Public Draft IS-MND will be submitted in PDF format. No hard copies will be provided. This scope of work does not include formatting the document to meet accessibility requirements.

Rincon will prepare a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt an Initial Study. Rincon will transmit the NOI and other required forms of the Initial Study electronically to the City. It is our understanding that the City will transmit the NOI and other required forms to the State Clearinghouse. We assume that the City will be responsible for mailing copies and notices to the County Clerk; responsible agencies, if any; neighboring or nearby property owners or residents; and other interested parties. It is also assumed that City will be responsible for other noticing required under CEQA or City procedures, including posting at the site or newspaper ads. However, Rincon can assist with these tasks for an additional fee on a time and materials basis.

Task 4: Final Initial Study and MMRP
Upon receipt of public comments on the Draft IS-MND, Rincon will prepare draft response to comments and an Administrative Final IS-MND for review by City staff. This scope of work assumes that up to three comment letters will be received, including one lengthy (over twenty pages) and/or substantive letter, that can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 60 professional staff hours. The actual level of effort required to respond will depend on the length, detail, and sophistication of the comments, in addition to the number of letters received. We reserve the right to reevaluate the effort level and request a scope amendment upon close of the public comment period.

Upon receipt of comments on the Administrative Final IS-MND, we will incorporate changes and prepare the Final IS-MND. This task will also include preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which will include a list of mitigation measures, monitoring timing, and responsibility.

One electronic copy of the Final Initial Study (PDF) will be provided. If the project is approved, Rincon will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City to file with the County Clerk. The City or applicant will be responsible for payment of County Clerk and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) CEQA fees.

Task 5: Meetings and Public Hearings
During preparation of the Initial Study, key Rincon staff will attend up to two virtual meetings with staff (one hour in length each). These meetings would be scheduled at the discretion of the City. Rincon’s Project Manager and/or Principal-in-Charge will also attend and present the conclusions of the Initial Study at one virtual Planning Commission and one virtual City Council hearing.

PG CC 2/16/22
120 of 470
City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

Page 5 ends

Project Management
This task includes management and coordination through the duration of the IS-MND, including coordination with City staff; project oversight; budget and schedule management; and project accounting including billing and accounts receivable efforts.

Assumptions
Rincon assumes the following:
 The City will conduct appropriate notification to all responsible agencies and to the public  One round of consolidated City comments will be provided on each deliverable  No project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from CDFW or RWQCB will be required
 The Initial Study will rely on AB 52 consultation already completed by the City for the previous ISMND  One lengthy (over 20 pages) and substantive letter will be submitted by from Wanger Jones Helsley PC (or other law firm representing the neighbors), and up to two additional short (under two pages) and non-substantive letters will be submitted, which can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 60 professional staff hours
 The City will be responsible for payment of the County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees
 Rincon will not provide hard copies of any deliverables Estimated Timeline
Rincon has an excellent reputation for adhering to schedules and meeting milestones. Based on our project understanding and the analysis required Rincon proposes to adhere to a schedule that allows for completion of the environmental review process in approximately three to four months depending on timing of our receipt of a complete and stable project description and plan set, City review times, and number and complexity of public comments.

1. Cultural Resources Peer Reviews. Rincon will perform peer reviews within three weeks of authorization to proceed, project kickoff, and receipt of technical reports from the City and applicant. We assume the technical reports will require up to three weeks for revisions.

2. Administrative Draft Initial Study. Rincon will submit the Administrative Draft Initial Study within eight weeks of receipt of a complete and stable project description, plan set, and revised technical reports from the City and applicant.

3. Public Review Draft Initial Study. Revisions to address City comments will be provided within three weeks and submitted to the City in track changes. Upon approval of revisions, the Public Draft IS-MND will be provided in PDF format in one week.

4. Final Initial Study and MMRP. The Administrative Final IS-MND and MMRP will be completed within approximately three to six weeks of receipt of all public comments, depending on the PG CC 2/16/22
121 of 470
number and complexity of public comments received. We will submit the Final IS-MND and MMRP within two weeks of receipt of City comments on the draft responses.

Cost
Rincon can complete the proposed work program for a cost not to exceed $51,375, a reduction of $32,856 from the originally proposed Focused EIR cost of $84,231. The revised cost is in addition to the work already completed for this project, including the January 5, 2022 kick-off meeting and project management tasks. When added to the work in progress balance of $2,116, the total revised budget would be $53,491. We also recommend including an approximately 10 percent contingency (or $5,350), only to be released upon City approval. A breakdown of our cost by task is summarized in the table on the next page. All services would be provided on a time and expense reimbursement basis and will be billed in accordance with our standard fee schedule for professional services.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Leslie Trejo, MUP
Project Manager
Phone: 510-984-6155
Email: [email protected]
Megan Jones, MPP
Principal-in-Charge
Phone: 831-920-5424
Email: [email protected]
PG CC 2/16/22
122 of 470
1661 Sunset Drive IS-MND Cost Estimate
21-11891 1661 Sunset IS-MND Rate Hours Labor Budget Total Budget Task 1: Cultural Resources Peer Reviews 68.00 12,104.00 12,104.00 Principal I 250.00 8.00 2,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 22.00 4,730.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 20.00 2,700.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 2.00 270.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 2.00 196.00
Task 2: Administrative Draft Initial Study 93.00 13,516.00 13,516.00 Principal I 250.00 5.00 1,250.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 3.00 645.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 3.00 585.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 4.00 656.00
Planner IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Biologist III 152.00 12.00 1,824.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 8.00 1,080.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 8.00 1,080.00
Planner I 120.00 30.00 3,600.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 6.00 588.00
Task 3: Public Review Draft Initial Study 28.00 4,402.00 4,402.00 Principal I 250.00 3.00 750.00
Senior Archaeologist II 195.00 4.00 780.00
Biologist IV 164.00 2.00 328.00
Planner IV 164.00 7.00 1,148.00
Planner I 120.00 10.00 1,200.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 2.00 196.00
Task 4: Finial Initial Study and MMRP 78.00 12,874.00 12,874.00 Principal I 250.00 9.00 2,250.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 4.00 860.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 8.00 1,560.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 10.00 1,640.00
Planner IV 164.00 21.00 3,444.00
Planner I 120.00 24.00 2,880.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Task 5: Meetings and Public Hearings 17.00 3,355.00 3,355.00 Principal I 250.00 6.00 1,500.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 1.00 215.00
Planner IV 164.00 10.00 1,640.00
Project Management 26.00 5,124.00 5,124.00
Principal I 250.00 10.00 2,500.00
Planner IV 164.00 16.00 2,624.00
Project Total 310.00 51,375.00 51,375.00
PG CC 2/16/22
123 of 470

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE 1661 SUNSET DRIVE

PROJECT

PREAMBLE
This Reimbursement Agreement ("Agreement") is by and between Elstob Family Investments LP, a California limited partnership ("Elstob Family Investments") and the City of Pacific Grove, California, a chartered California municipal corporation ("City").

Elstob Family Investments may also be referred to as "Applicant." City and Applicant may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement."

RECITALS
A. The Applicant desires to redevelop various parcels collectively referred to as 1661 SUNSET DRIVE; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 007-041-033, 007-041-034, and 007-041-035 (Proposed Project).

B. The City will incur various costs and expenses including preparation of a revised Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (revised IS/MND) for the Proposed Project. The City has retained an Environmental Planning consultant, Rincon Consultants Inc., to assist in the analysis of environmental clearance documents for conformance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the preparation of a revised IS/MND and attendant notifications, reports and presentations, and attendance at relevant meetings, associated with the Proposed Project.

C. Applicant is willing to reimburse City for Eligible Costs to be incurred by City in connection with the utilization of Rincon Consultants, Inc. to provide environmental review in compliance with CEQA on the 1661 Sunset Drive site(s), as set forth herein.

In consideration of the recitals and mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

1. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for payment by Applicant of all Eligible Costs (defined below) directly or indirectly incurred by City in connection with the Proposed Project.

Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 1 of 6 ends

PG CC 2/16/22
124 of 470

2. REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION
A. The Applicant shall reimburse the City for Planning fees associated with the preparation of a revised IS/MND, notifications and presentation preparation of the Proposed Project, including Planning Consultant and/or dedicated staff fees and costs incurred in connection with the review of Planning Applications for the Proposed Project (collectively, the "Eligible Costs") in accordance with this Agreement.

B. The total amount of Eligible Costs is estimated to be $58,841 including a 10 percent contingency fee. This includes reimbursement for contract expenses, fees and direct consultant costs associated with contract or project management.

All direct City staff costs will be billed at the fully-burdened hourly rate, which is determined annually by the City. City agrees to use its best efforts to stay within the Estimated Budget. In the event that additional services are required that would exceed the Estimated Budget, City shall give the Applicant 10 business days' advance written notice prior to authorizing any work that would cause the Eligible Costs to exceed the Estimated Budget, which notice shall document the budget for additional services that would exceed the Estimated Budget ("Additional Budget"). If City and Applicant cannot agree to the scope and cost of said additional services in writing, this Agreement may be terminated or extended pursuant to Section 7. Applicant shall provide an amount to cover additional costs prior to the commencement of additional services, unless the Parties agree to an alternate funding allocation as part of the review and approval of the scope and cost of said additional services.

3. PAYMENT OF ELIGIBLE COSTS
A. Upon execution of this Agreement, Applicant shall deposit with City the sum equivalent to $58,841 in cash or other immediately available funds ("Payment"). The Payment will be retained as a "Deposit" in satisfaction of Applicant's obligation to pay Applicant's Share of Eligible Costs.

B. If the City provides notice pursuant to Section 2.B of this Agreement that services are required that would cause the Eligible Costs to exceed the Estimated Budget, the Applicant shall deposit with City the sum equivalent to [Additional Budget] in cash or other immediately available funds ("Additional Payment") in satisfaction of Applicant's obligation to pay Eligible Costs. Upon mutual agreement of the City and Applicant, the Applicant may provide the Additional Payments in accordance with Section 3.A.

C. City shall withdraw from the Payment and Additional Payment, if any, as necessary to cover the Eligible Costs. On a monthly basis, City shall provide written notice to all Applicant documenting: (1) the amount of Eligible Costs Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 2 of 6 ends

PG CC 2/16/22
125 of 470
Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 3 of 6 ends

incurred to date; (2) the amount of Payments and Additional Payments, if any, that the City has used to pay Eligible Costs incurred to date; and (3) the remaining balance of the Applicant's Payment and Additional Payments, if any.

D. The Applicant makes this commitment without regard to the City's ultimate decision whether to approve the Proposed Project.

4. REFUND OF UNEXPENDED BALANCE
A. In the event this Agreement is terminated as provided in Section 6 below, City shall return to each Applicant within 45 days following the effective date of termination that portion of the Payment or Additional Payment, if any that has not been expended or committed by City as provided herein. If unexpended funds are returned and the City is invoiced for any direct costs that were completed prior to the date of termination, the Applicant shall be billed for those costs.

B. Any unexpended funds shall be returned to the Applicant within 45 days after (1) the City approves or denies all relevant planning applications associated with the Proposed Project. City shall provide copies of invoices and other documents to verify final costs for services.

5. NO COMMITMENT AS TO FUTURE APPROVALS
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as a commitment to grant or issue any preliminary or final approvals in connection with the Proposed Project. Each Applicant acknowledges and agrees that nothing in this Agreement limits City's discretion, in any manner, with respect to any aspect of the Proposed Project.

Each Applicant agrees that it shall remain obligated to pay Applicant's Share of all Eligible Costs, regardless of whether any aspect of the Proposed Project is approved.

6. TERM; TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. The term of this Agreement shall be from the Effective Date until the date the services identified in Recital B have been fully performed and paid for, unless terminated earlier.

B. Any Party may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving the other Parties written notice ("Notice of Termination") which clearly expresses that Party's intent to terminate the Agreement. Notice of Termination shall become effective no less than ten (10) calendar days after all Parties receive such notice.

No Applicant shall have an obligation to pay any Eligible Costs incurred on or after the effective date of the termination, but shall remain responsible for any Eligible Costs incurred prior to the effective date of the termination.

C. In the event of termination of this Agreement, City shall prepare a statement for all services rendered by City. City will refund any unexpended balance of Applicant's funds to Applicant in accordance with Section 4 of this Agreement.

PG CC 2/16/22
126 of 470
Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 4 of 6 ends

7. APPLICANT STANDING
Applicant is a California LP. Applicant shall maintain limited partnership existence and good standing in its jurisdiction of registration and maintain qualification in each jurisdiction in which it is required under applicable law.

Applicant shall maintain in force all licenses, approvals, and agreements, the loss of which could have a Material Adverse Effect. Applicant 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 Applicant is in good standing as a limited partnership in the State of California.

8. ASSIGNMENT
An Applicant may assign its interest in this Agreement with the prior written notice and consent of City.

9. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT
This Agreement represents the entire agreement between City and Applicant. No other understanding, agreements, conversations, or otherwise, with any representative of any Party prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations of this Agreement. Any verbal agreement shall be considered unofficial information and is not binding upon any Party.

10. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
In case any one or more of the provisions in this Agreement shall, for any reason, be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, it shall not affect the validity of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect.

11. WAIVER
Waiver of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver(s) of any other condition of performance under this Agreement.

12. NOTICES
All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows:

City of Pacific Grove
Attention: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Director Community Development Dept. 300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Phone: 831-648-3192
Fax: 831-648-3184
Email: [email protected]
PG CC 2/16/22
127 of 470
Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 5 of 6 ends

to Elstob Family Investments addressed as follows:

Elstob Family Investments, LP
Attention: Mark Elstob
415 Crocker Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Phone: 831-655-9858
Email: [email protected]
If notice is sent via facsimile, a signed, hard copy of the material shall also be mailed. The workday the facsimile was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given if there is a facsimile machine generated document on the date of transmission. A facsimile transmitted after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following Monday.

13. CAPTIONS
The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation.

14. LAW GOVERNING CONTRACT AND VENUE
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. The venue of any suit filed by any Party shall be vested in the state courts of the County of Monterey, or if appropriate, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose, California.

15. COUNTERPARTS AND SIGNATURES
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but both of which shall constitute one and the same instrument; and, the Parties agree that signatures on this Agreement, including those transmitted by facsimile, shall be sufficient to bind the Parties.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. The Effective Date is the date that the final signatory executes the Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date. [Signatures on following pages]
PG CC 2/16/22
128 of 470
Revised IS/MND
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft 02/01/2022

Page 6 of 6 ends

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: ______________________
______________________
DAVID C. LAREDO
City Attorney

ATTEST:
________________________

SANDRA KANDELL
City Clerk
"CITY"
_________________________

BEN HARVEY
City Manager
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Telephone: (831) 648-3106
Fax: (831) 657-9361

ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LP
a California limited partnership
Dated: __________________________________
By: _____________________________________
(Signature)
Name: Mark Elstob_________________________
Title: General Partner_______________________
By: _____________________________________
(Signature)
Name: __________________________________
Title: ___________________________________
Local Address: 415 Crocker Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (925) 915-9338__________________
Fax: ____________________________________
"ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS"
PG CC 2/16/22
129 of 470
Agenda No. 9 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Thomas Horvath Appointment to Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointment of Thomas Horvath to Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel for a term ending January 31, 2024.

DISCUSSION
Boards, commissions, and committees (committees) play a vital role in city government and provide opportunities for residents to become engaged in civic activities and work to improve local governance.

Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (Charter Article 26). Further regulations and policy regarding appointments can be found in PGMC Chapter 3.02 and Policy 000-5.

Terms are 2 years for non-Charter committees.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Redacted App
PG CC 2/16/22
130 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
131 of 470

CURRICULUM VITAE
Thomas Horvath

CONTACT INFORMATION
College of Science
California State University Monterey Bay
Seaside CA 93955-8001
USA
Email:

Ph:

Career Summary/Values
More than 15 years of leadership in higher education convince me that a College’s greatest asset is its people, and investing in faculty and staff strengthens the institution.

A dean can leverage budgets, hiring, and curricular leadership to enhance student learning and promote research and professional development for faculty and staff. I value evidence-based decision making and continuous improvement within a shared governance structure. With an eye toward service-oriented leadership through an inclusive lens, I remain committed to supporting student access to educational opportunities, a global/international perspective, and a sound foundation in the liberal arts.

EDUCATION
1992 - 1997 Ph.D. in Aquatic Biology, University of Notre Dame 1990 - 1992 B.Sc. in Biology/German (minor Chemistry), University of Indianapolis 1987 – 1990 Indiana University Northwest; Purdue University Calumet LEADESHIP EXPERIENCES & ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
2018 – present: Associate Dean, College of Science, California State University Monterey Bay
Duties and Responsibilities:
• Support the Dean in all aspects of College leadership. • Manage enrollment processes for the College through data- and evidence-based measures
• Curriculum management, including internal and external review processes, curricular changes and new program development.
• Appropriate administrator for issues related to College staff, including oversight of annual evaluations for lecturers and staff.
• Support the College on student success initiatives, including advising, improving retention and graduation rates, and grant-writing in support of College-level programs.

Key Accomplishments to date:
• Equity-minded assessment to faculty workload
• Increased graduation and retention rates, especially among URM student groups.
• On-time evaluation of all faculty and staff, in accordance to CBAs.

PG CC 2/16/22
132 of 470
• Initiated a shared governance document for the College. • Managed creation of 3 new departments within the College. • Revised budget and management processes for HSI STEM grant. • Managed on-site access and use of science buildings during COVID-related remote work transition.
• Developed a new B.S. in Agricultural Crop and Soil Science and managing a proposed B.S. in Mechatronics Engineering, including articulations with community colleges and international partner universities. • Contributed to initial phases of a feasibility study for a new science building. • Strengthened relationships with international partner universities. • Developing the College’s new Strategic Plan
Pandemic Responses (Cal State Monterey Bay remains in remote teaching mode):
• Managing access to all science facilities on campus
• Coordinating faculty needs – data gathering and response to specific needs • Created an approval process to get researchers back in their labs (this process is now adopted throughout the university)
• Altered the lecturer evaluation process (while staying within the letter of the CBA) to better capture the invisible labor involved with teaching in remote mode 2013 -2018: Faculty Manager, Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences University Koblenz-Landau, Landau Germany
The Faculty of Natural and Environmental Sciences has 21 research groups organized into four Institutes (Natural Science Teaching, Environmental Sciences, Mathematics, Sport Science). The Faculty has over 140 employees and brings in annually around 4 million Euros in external grants. The Faculty Manager provides management support for the Dean, and indirectly for the Chancellor, with a focus on the administrative effectiveness of the Faculty. It is a direct report to the Dean, although the Dean is a term-elected position from the Faculty Council. The Faculty Manger builds the basis for the Dean’s Management Team and is the contact point in the Faculty for the central administration.

Duties and Responsibilities:
• Managed the processes of admittance into the doctoral program and conferral of doctoral degree
• Coordinated the semester offerings of the Faculty so as to allow students to graduate on time
• Supported the assessment and program review processes of the bachelor and master degree programs, including implementation of the quality assurance plan • Oversaw the distribution of the Faculty financial resources (approx. 450,000 € in operating funds, 700,000€ in supplementary funds)
• Supported the central administration on all matters pertaining to teaching, research and internationalization within the Faculty
• Contact point for the construction of a new laboratory building • Coordinated re-accreditation processes for non-teaching degrees • Supported the strategic planning process for the Faculty PG CC 2/16/22
133 of 470
• Coordinated the committee structure of the Faculty
• International marketing efforts for new major programs Key accomplishments:
• Restructured the distribution of financial resources among research groups to reflect scientific output
• Dedication of new laboratory building slated for fall 2018 • Increased international application and intakes in the master programs – 40% • Developed international research opportunities, developed MOUs with partner universities and initiated discussion of EU joint master programs • Co-coordinated the successful accreditation of the newly conceived bachelor program Humans and the Environment – Psychology, Communication, Economics, a first of its kind cross-Faculty degree; marketing strategy and recruitment of inaugural class resulted in maximum enrollment • Created and maintained a database of institutional statistics that supported all Institutes and openly provided data for the Faculty leadership 2006 - 2012 Director of Environmental Sciences, State University New York at Oneonta. Oneonta NY
Duties and Responsibilities:
• Coordinated the curriculum which involved 5 departmental offerings • Represented the Program both internally (Divisional, Council of Chairs, College Senate, New Student Orientation) and externally
• Oversaw the college’s highest profile endowed lecture series – The CornellGladstone-Hanlon-Kaufmann Lecture in Environmental Education and Communication, including maintaining communication with the endower and his family
• Responsible for recruitment and retention of students, enrollment management, hiring and supervision of new faculty, budget management • Curriculum assessments and curricular development, including forming a plan to create a new academic department
• Fund raising through grant writing and alumni solicitations Key accomplishments:
• 60% increase in student enrollment
• Inclusion of three new departments (Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science) • Created Program bi-laws
• Involvement of Program in Project Kaleidoscope, a multi-university consortium addressing how best to incorporate interdisciplinarity in college curricula • Advocated and hired the only faculty specifically for the Program • Initiated a new endowment for student scholarships through intensive fund raising and coordinated efforts with the Office of College Advancement • Developed partnership with the University of Cologne, which saw four students accepted in their International Master of Environmental Science PG CC 2/16/22
134 of 470
• Revised curriculum and directly involved students in the Program development by giving them representation in “department” meetings
ACADEMIC POSITIONS HELD:
2011 - 2013 Professor of Biology, State University New York at Oneonta. Oneonta NY 2007 - 2011 Associate Professor of Biology, State University New York at Oneonta.

Oneonta NY
2001 - 2007 Assistant Professor of Biology, State University New York at Oneonta.

Oneonta NY
1999 - 2001 Adjunct Lecturer, Purdue University North Central PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS HELD:
1999 - 2001 Ecologist/Statistician, US Geological Survey 1997 - 1999 Postdoctoral research, Max Planck Institute for Limnology’s River Station

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
• Certificate of completion for the Crisis Leadership in Higher Education Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Executive Education, March 2021 (Online)
• ACAD Dean’s Institute 2021 (Online)
• CCAS New Deans Workshop - December 2020 (Online)
• Dialogues Across Differences – an internal group leading dialogues on issues of race and equity among campus organizations
• CCAS Dean Discussions – 2020 National discussions on COVID response topics facing deans of Arts and Sciences.
• Cal State’s Quality Teaching and Learning Program – Introduction to Teaching Online
• Diversity and Inclusion Training, 2019 CSUMB Office of Inclusive Excellence, Certificate program with workshops throughout the year (e.g., DACA Ally Training; Recognizing Microaggression, Power, Privilege, and Oppression) • CSU Student Success Analytics – 2019 throughout the year, Certificate program involving weekly data discussions and a team project (Tackling the sophomore slump at CSUMB).
• Moving Beyond Bias – 2019 (https://movingbeyondbias.org/) • Positive Psychology and Leadership – 2017 Certificate program that included both academic and industry leaders in the Pfalz, Germany region. Weekly assignments, journaling, and occasional weekend group sessions applying strategies based on Kim Cameron’s Practicing Positive Leadership (creating a positive climate, positive relationships, positive communication, and positive meaning)
• Negotiation styles for the management of interpersonal conflicts seminar (Peace Academy of Rhineland-Pfalz 2017)
• Erasmus+ IV Joint International Week (2017 – Tallinn Estonia) • DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) certificates: Legal aspects of international cooperation (2016); Introduction to internationalization for managers (2016); Accreditation of academic programs with double degrees PG CC 2/16/22
135 of 470
(2016); Developing international academic programs with double degrees (2015)
ACADEMIC AWARDS, FELLOWSHIPS and GRANTS
• US Dept of Education: HSI-STEM: Research-based
interventions to increase STEM degree attainment
(managing Co-PI)
$5,622,466 2015-2020
• Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG):

International cooperative research: Crayfish plague
in North America
3,620 € 2014
• Fulbright Scholar – Specialist Program, University of Pécs, Hungary.
2010
• Hungarian National Academy of Sciences External
member
Since 2008
• Richard Siegfried Junior Faculty Prize for Academic
Excellence
2004
• National Languages Honor Society Since 2003
• Research Fellowship, Max Planck Institute for
Limnology’s River Station, Germany
1997-1999
• Navarri Fellowship, Department of Biological
Sciences, University of Notre Dame
1996-1997
• National Biological Honors Society Since 1989
• Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA):

Continued monitoring of zebra mussel veligers, and
development of food web models for Otsego Lake
$12,500 2009-2011
• Internal SUNY grants $15,200 2001-2009
• Mid-Atlantic Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species:

Current and projected distribution of the invasive
rusty crayfish, Orconectes rusticus, in the Upper
Susquehanna River basin.
$6,910 2008-2009
• NSF: Interactive case-study teaching with large
classroom response systems in large biology classes.
(Senior Personnel – not involved with submission)
$399,354 2007-2008
• NSF MRI: Acquisition of laboratory equipment for
long-term water quality and watershed
management projects.
$115,269 2004-2006
• US EPA Challenge Grant: Assessing the threat of
zebra mussel dispersal within the Upper
Susquehanna River basin and prevention of further
dispersal by public education.
$25,400 2003

COURSES TAUGHT
Undergraduate Courses (Bachelors) Graduate Courses (Masters) General Biology (Majors, Nonmajors,
Honors)1,3
Topics in Limnology: Biology of Meiofauna;
Aquatic Invasive Species1
Introduction to Environmental Pollution1 Experimental Stream Ecology1 PG CC 2/16/22
136 of 470
Aquatic Pollution (Ecotoxicology)1
Lake Monitoring1
Limnology1 Bioassessment and Biocriteria1
Stream Ecology1 Advanced Limnology1,2
Environmental Monitoring1 Field Ecology2
Environmental Sustainability1
First-Year Experience1
Scientific Writing Workshop for Doctoral
Students3
1State University New York at Oneonta, 2University of Koblenz-Landau, 3University of Maryland University College Europe (US Army Facility Kaiserslautern)

UNIVERSITY SERVICE
CSUMB • Campus Repopulation Workgroups
o Health & Safety
o Curriculum Instruction
• President’s Committee on Equity and Inclusion
o Training Subcommittee
• Strategic Enrollment Management
o Recruitment subcommittee
• Otter Promise:
o Holistic Wellness
o Student-centered Scheduling
• Campus Safety Committee
• Skelly-trained officer (impartial reviewer of disciplinary actions) • Institutional Assessment and Research Feedback Group
• Search committees: Assoc Dean of Advising; Registrar; Science education postoc
• Exploratory task force for departmentalization
• Search Committees: Associate Dean College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (Chair); Registrar; Associate Dean University College.

KoblenzLandau
• Commission for Quality Assurance and Development in Teaching • University Senator
• ad hoc Committee for Internationalization
• Faculty Council
• Doctoral Committee
• Committee for Teaching and Learning
• Committee for Research
SUNY • Faculty College Senator – Vice-Chair/Alternate Presiding Officer • Committee on Administrative Review - (Served as Chair) • Presidential Advisory Committee on Sustainability (founding member) • Energy and Sustainability Taskforce
• Graduate Committee (campus and state system)
• Curriculum Committee
• Intercollegiate Athletic Board
• Divisional Dean’s Council
PG CC 2/16/22
137 of 470
• Council of Chairs
• Search committee for Dean of Social Sciences
• Chair of Promotion & Review Committee (Department)
• Biological Field Station Committee
• Faculty Search Committees (also as Chair) and ad hoc committees • Faculty Union (UUP): Health and Safety Officer, Secretary, State Delegate PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS (*indicates student co-author) 19 Jungkunst, H., J. Goepel, T. Horvath, S. Ott, M. Brunn. Resubmission. Global soil carbon-climate interactions: a review of ecozonal features. WIREs Climate Change.
18 Jungkunst, H., J. Goepel, T. Horvath, S. Ott, M. Brunn. 2021. New uses for old tools: Reviving Holdridge Life Zones in soil carbon persistence research. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 184:5-11.
17 Panteleit, J., T. Horvath, J. Jussila, J. Makkonen, W. Perry, R. Schulz, K. Theissinger, and A. Schrimpf. 2019. Invasive rusty crayfish (Faxonius rusticus) populations in North America are infected with the crayfish plague disease agent (Aphanomyces astaci). Freshwater Science. 38(2):425-433.
16 Bischoff, P.B. and T. G. Horvath. 2011. Abundances of naked amoebae and macroflagellates in Central New York lakes: Possible effects by zebra mussels. Acta Protozologica. 50:23–31.
15 Lundeberg, M.A., H. Kang, B. Wolter, R. delMas, N. Armstrong, B. Borsari, N.

Boury, P. Brickman, K. Hannam, C. Heinz, T. Horvath, M. Knabb, T. Platt, N. Rice, B.

Rogers, J. Sharp, E. Ribbens, K. Maier, M. Deschryver, R. Hagley, T. Goulet, C.F.

Herreid. 2011. Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development. 59(5): 645-671. 14 Associate author. Kang et al. 2011. Gender differences in student performance in large lecture classrooms using personal response systems (“clickers”) with narrative case studies. Learning, Media and Technology. 9: 1-24. 13 Associate author. Wolter, B.H.K., M.A. Lundberg, H. Kang and C.F. Herreid. 2011.

Students’ perceptions of using personal response systems (“clickers”) with cases in science. Journal of College Science Teaching 40(4):14-19. 12 Horvath, T.G. and L. Crane* 2010. Hydrodynamic forces affect larval zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) mortality in a laboratory setting. Aquatic Invasion 5(4):379-385.
11 Horvath, T.G. 2008. Economically viable strategy for prevention of invasive species introduction: Case study of Otsego Lake, New York. Aquatic Invasions 3(1):3-9. 10 Horvath, T. 2005. A killer lake. Journal of College Science Teaching October:18-21. 9 Horvath, T.G. 2004. Retention of particulate matter by macrophytes in a firstorder stream. Aquatic Botany 78(1):27-36. 8 Cronin, G., D.M. Lodge, M.E. Hay, M. Miller, A. Hill, T. Horvath, R. Bolser, N.

Lindquist, and M. Wahl. 2002. Crayfish feeding preferences for freshwater macrophytes: the influence of plant structure and chemistry. Journal of Crustacean Biology 22(4): 708–718.

PG CC 2/16/22
138 of 470
7 Horvath, T.G., R.L. Whitman, and L.L. Last. 2001. Establishment of two invasive crustaceans (Copepoda: Harpacticoida) in the nearshore sands of Lake Michigan.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:1261-1264. 6 Lewis, K.M., J.L. Feder, T.G. Horvath and G.A. Lamberti. 2000. Heterozygosity and fitness: No strong association in Great Lakes populations of zebra mussel, Dreissena polymorpha. (Pallas). Malacologia 42:113-122. 5 Horvath, T.G., K.M. Martin, and G.A. Lamberti. 1999. Effect of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, on stream macroinvertebrates. American Midland Naturalist 142:340-347.
4 Horvath, T.G. and G.A. Lamberti. 1999. Limitation of zebra mussel recruitment in streams by veliger mortality. Freshwater Biology 42:69-76. 3 Horvath, T.G. and G.A. Lamberti. 1999. Recruitment and growth of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in coupled lake-stream systems. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 145/2:197-217.
2 Horvath, T.G. and G.A. Lamberti. 1997. Drifting macrophytes as a mechanism for zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) invasion of lake-outlet streams. American Midland Naturalist 138:29-36.
1 Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, D.M. Lodge, and W.L. Perry. 1996. Zebra mussel dispersal in lake-stream systems: source-sink dynamics? Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:564-575.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS (* indicates peer-review process)
16 Jungkunst, H., T. Horvath, S. Erasmi, J.P. Krueger, K.H.M. Meuer, K.

Schuetzenmeister, T. Guillaume, T. Scholten, F. Baumann, P.-M. Schleuss, J.-S. He, P. Kuehn, J. Henkner, T. Kaetterer, and J. Schneider. 2019. Regionally diverse landuse driven feedback from soils to the climate system. pp 61-129 In: Soil and Climate. Lal, R and B.A. Stewart (ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton. 15 Cox, E., J. Marxsen, and T. Horvath. 2011. Primary producers. pp. 99-130 In:

Central European Stream Ecosystems: The Long-Term Study of the Breitenbach.

Wagner, R. et al. (ed.) Wiley Blackwell Publishers, Weinheim, Germany. 14 Horvath, T. 2009. Human movements: Consequences to global biogeography.

Chapter in Leung, Hendley, Compton and Haley (editors) Imagining Globalization:

Language, Identities and Boundaries. Palgrave MacMillan. 13* Horvath, T. 2009. Cross-Dressing Salmon: Survival of the Sneaky - The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science Case Collection (http://www.sciencecases.org/sneaky_salmon/prelude.asp) 12* Horvath, T. 2009. Not Necessarily on Purpose: Domestication and Speciation in the Canidae Family - The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science Case Collection (http://www.sciencecases.org/dog_evolution/prelude.asp) 11* Rogers, W. and T. Horvath. 2008. Life: The Final Frontier - The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science Case Collection
(http://www.sciencecases.org/life/prelude.asp)
10* Horvath, T. 2005. Killer Lakes - The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science Case Collection
(http://www.sciencecases.org/lake_nyos_a/lake_nyos_a.asp) PG CC 2/16/22
139 of 470
9 J. Caddick, J. Christmas, V. Clark, R. Fernald, S. Foti, L. Goldblatt, D. Heicher, T.

Horvath, R. Klauda, L. Moss, T. Shaw, T. Sinnott, J. Thompson, K. Wakefield, B.

Watson. 2003. Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Regional Management Plan. Prepared by: The Regional Dreissena polymorpha Working Group (15 authors).
8 Horvath, T. 2004. Principles of monitoring design. Pages 4-11 in Becker Nevers and Whitman, Lake Monitoring Field Manual. US Geological Survey Publication. 7 Whitman, R.L., M.B. Nevers, L.L. Last, T.G. Horvath, M.L. Goodrich, S.M. Mahoney, and J.A. Nefczyk. , Status and trends of selected inland lakes of the Great Lakes Cluster national parks. 2002. NPS Midwest Region. 310 pages. 6 Horvath, T.G., R.L. Whitman, L.L. Last, M.B. Nevers. 2000. Evaluation of beach nourishment activities on bottom fauna and yellow perch in near shore areas of Mt. Baldy, 1996-1998. USGS Report.
5 Whitman, R.L, T.G. Horvath, M.L. Goodrich, M.B. Nevers. 2000. Characterization of E. coli levels at 63rd Street beach.
4 Whitman, R.L, T.G. Horvath, L.L. Last M.L. Goodrich, M.B. Nevers. 2000. The effects of shooting range lead shot on the sand-dwelling animals in the near shore waters of Lake Michigan. USGS Report.
3 Horvath, T.G. 1997. Dispersal and ecological impact of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha (Pallas), in coupled lake-stream systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. 201 pages. 2 Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, W.L. Perry, and D.M. Lodge. 1994. Impact of zebra mussels on unionid clams of the St. Joseph River system in Indiana. Report submitted to Division of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 30 pages.
1 Harding, J.M., T.G. Horvath, and G.A. Lamberti. 1993. Establishment of a monitoring network for zebra mussels in streams of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Technical report submitted to the Research Division of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 29 pages.

PRESENTED PAPERS (* indicates student co-presenters)
Horvath, T. and A. Bartlett. 2021. Crisis Leadership: A workshop with 47 participants at the CCAS Annual meeting in Portland.

Horvath, T. T. Sumter, and A. Lawson. 2021. Multiple Stable States in the Higher Education Landscape: What Can a Dean’s Office Expect? CCAS Annual meeting in Portland.

Horvath, T. 2011. Human-Mediated and Natural Dispersal of Invasive Species:

Implications for Watershed-Scale Management Practices. 14th World Lake Conference, Austin Texas.
*Crane, L. and T. Horvath 2008. Hydrodynamic Force Impacts on Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) veligers. Northeast Natural History Conference, Albany NY, and Student Research Day, SUNY – Oneonta.

Horvath, T.G., A.J. *Healy, and B.S. *Hayes. 2006. Autecology of Canthocamptus staphylinoides (Harpacticoida) in nearshore sediments of Otsego Lake, New York.

American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Annual summer meeting, Victoria, BC.

PG CC 2/16/22
140 of 470
*Bury, B., and T. Horvath. 2006. Update on crayfish in the West Branch Delaware River.

Northeast Natural History Conference, Albany NY, and Student Research Day, SUNY – Oneonta.

Horvath, T.G., and *Gray, M. S. 2005. Zebra Mussels in the Susquehanna River Basin:

Spatial Distribution and Policy Actions. New England Association of Environmental Biologists annual meeting, Lake George NY.

Horvath, T.G. 2005. Harpacticoids in Lake Ontario’s nearshore sediments: A cooperative project with the US Geological Survey. Presented at the Faculty Research Show SUNY-Oneonta.

Horvath, T.G. 2004. Temporal and spatial variations in nearshore meiofauna from Otsego Lake, New York, USA. International Society of Limnology’s 29th Congress, Lahti Finland.

Gray, M. S., Horvath, T.G., and Ingmire, S. 2004. Natural and human-mediated dispersal of zebra mussel from Eaton Brook Reservoir, Madison County, NY. Mid Atlantic Chapter of the Ecological Society of America Conference on Sustainable Landscapes.

Gray, M. S., Horvath, T.G., and Ingmire, S. 2004. Natural and human-mediated dispersal of zebra mussel from Eaton Brook Reservoir, Madison County, NY. American Institute for Biological Sciences Annual Meeting, Washington DC.

Bischoff, P.J., and Horvath, T.G. 2004. Trophic relationships among bacteria, gymnamoebae (protozoans) and harpacticoids in the sediments of Otsego Lake.

Presented at the Faculty Research Show SUNY-Oneonta.

Gray, M. S., Horvath, T.G., and Ingmire, S. 2004. Natural and human-mediated dispersal of zebra mussel from Eaton Brook Reservoir, Madison County, NY. New York State Federation of Lake Associations meeting. Hamilton NY.

Gray, M. S., Horvath, T.G., and Ingmire, S. 2003. Natural and human-mediated dispersal of zebra mussel from Eaton Brook Reservoir, Madison County, NY. Presented at the 28th annual Biological Sciences Research Symposium Binghamton University.

Horvath, T.G. 2003. Downstream dispersal of zebra mussels in a nearby coupled lakestream system: A new spin on limiting factors. Presented at the Faculty Research Show SUNY-Oneonta.

Cornwell, M.D. and Horvath, T.G. 2002. Recolonization of azoic sediments by meiofauna in the hydropsammon of Otsego Lake, New York. Presented at the 27th annual Biological Sciences Research Symposium Binghamton University.

Horvath, T.G., and Cornwell, M.D. 2002. Meiofauna recolonization dynamics in three distinct zones near the shoreline of Otsego Lake, New York. 50th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Cornwell, M.D. and Horvath, T.G. 2002. Recolonization of azoic sediments by meiofauna in the hydropsammon of Otsego Lake, New York. 50th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

Horvath T.G., and Cornwell, M.D. 2002. Meiofauna recolonization dynamics in three distinct nearshore zones of Otsego Lake, New York. Northeast Natural History Conference. Albany, New York.

Horvath, T.G. 2002. Disturbing animals in the sands or Benthic invertebrates, don't hold the meio. Presented at the Faculty Research Show SUNY-Oneonta.

PG CC 2/16/22
141 of 470
Horvath, T.G. 2001. Invading species dominate the harpacticoid fauna in nearshore sands of southern Lake Michigan. Presented at the 26th annual Biological Sciences Research Symposium Binghamton University.

Horvath, T.G., E.J.Oberdick, L.L.Last, and R.L.Whitman. 2001. Invading species dominate the harpacticoid fauna in nearshore sands of southern Lake Michigan. 49th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. LaCrosse, Wisconsin.

Horvath, T.G., R.L. Whitman, L.L. Last, and M.B. Nevers. 2001. Benthic invertebrate community from the nearshore sands of southern Lake Michigan: changes in community composition. 44th Annual Meeting of the International Association of Great Lakes Research. Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Horvath, T.G. 2001. Zebra mussel colonization of lake-outlet streams. New York State Federation of Lake Associations. Hamilton, New York.

Horvath, T.G., R.L. Whitman, M.L. Goodrich, L.L. Last, and M.B. Nevers. 2000. Assessing and monitoring the inland lakes of the Great Lakes cluster national parks using benthic invertebrates. 48th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Keystone, Colorado.

Horvath T.G. and Callies, K. 1999. Microbial decomposition of riparian vegetation along the Breitenbach: colonization dynamics of aquatic hyphomycetes. 47th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Duluth, Minnesota.

Lamberti, G.A., D.M. Lodge, T.G. Horvath, W.L. Perry, and A.H. Fullerton. 1997. Sources and sinks: Dispersal and impacts of exotic species in coupled lake-stream systems. 45th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. San Marcos, Texas.

Johnson, L.E., T.G. Horvath, G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1997. Mechanisms of the geographical spread of zebra mussels over different spatial scales. Annual Meeting of the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Sante Fe, New Mexico.

Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1996. Zebra mussel recruitment in a lakeoutlet stream: comparison of larval and adult dispersal. 44th Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Kalispell, Montana.

Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1996. Comparison of zebra mussel recruitment in a lake and its outlet stream. Sixth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference. Dearborne, Michigan.

Lamberti, G.A., T.G. Horvath, W.L. Perry, and D.M. Lodge. 1995. Dispersal and limiting factors for zebra mussels in streams. 43rd Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Keystone, Colorado.

Horvath, T.G., G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1995. Factors influencing zebra mussel distribution in a lake-outlet stream. Fifth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference. Toronto, Ontario.

Horvath, T.G. 1995. Factors limiting zebra mussel distribution in a lake-outlet stream.

Midwest Ecology and Evolution Conference, Michigan State University.

Horvath, T.G., W.L. Perry, G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1995. Zebra mussel dispersal in the St. Joseph River basin (Indiana-Michigan): lakes as sources for downstream dispersal. Environmental Chemistry Conference, University of Notre Dame.

PG CC 2/16/22
142 of 470
Horvath, T.G., W.L. Perry, G.A. Lamberti, and D.M. Lodge. 1994. Zebra mussel dispersal in the St. Joseph River basin (Indiana-Michigan): lakes as sources for downstream dispersal. Fourth International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Organisms Conference. Madison, Wisconsin.

Cronin, G., D. Lodge, M. Hay, N. Lindquist, M. Wohlenberg, R. Bolser, A. Hill, T. Horvath, and M. Wahl. 1994. Plant preference by freshwater specialist herbivores:

Selection of enemy-free space? 42nd Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Orlando, Florida.

Lamberti, G.A., D.M. Lodge, T.G. Horvath, W.L. Perry, P.M. Charlebois, and J.D. Yount. 1994. Influence of exotic invertebrates in stream ecosystems: Zebra mussels and rusty crayfish in Indiana and Michigan. 42nd Annual Meeting of the North American Benthological Society. Orlando, Florida.

Horvath, T.G. 1995. Zebra mussel distribution in a lake and its outflowing stream.

Midwest Ecology and Evolution Conference, Bowling Green State University.

INVITED SEMINARS and PUBLIC OUTREACH
Reopening full scientific operations; Invited panelist on BioRAFT webinar (2021) Protecting lakes from invasive species through boat inspections. Lake Summit, Cazenovia Lake, (2008).

They’re here to stay: Zebra mussel impacts on Otsego Lake and its residents. Otsego County Conservation Association (OCCA) fundraising event (2008).

Dreissenid mussels in riverine systems. American Water Works Association, Henderson NV 3 (2008).

Passing the torch: Careful it’s hot. Last Lecture Series at Oneonta (2008).

Zebra mussels: How they got here and what to expect. OCCA (2007) Zebra mussels of Otsego County. Oneonta Rotary Club (2007) State of dreissenid mussels in the Susquehanna River basin. Pennsylvania Sea Grant. (2007).

Plants and animals of mass destruction: Invasive species. Hartwick College Tri-Beta Biological Honor Society (2005).

Human movements: Consequences for global biogeography. Presented at Center for Social Science Research Borders and Boundaries in an Age of Globalization (2005).

Too late for not in my backyard: Biological invasion of zebra mussels in the Upper Susquehanna River basin. Richard Siegfried Lecture (2005) Global climate change: Causes & consequences, science & speculation. Carson Lecture (2003).

Biological invasions: Zebra mussels, coming to a lake near you? Presented to the Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society (2003).

Everything you ever wanted to know about lakes. Panel presentation, New York State Federation of Lake Associations (2003).

Life’s sign posts are not always written in English. Presented to the International Language Honor Society (2003).

Animals of mass destruction: An exotic species threat now in our midst. SUNY College at Oneonta Faculty Convivium (2002).

PG CC 2/16/22
143 of 470
Current and projected distribution of zebra mussels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Workshop on invasive species management sponsored by Maryland Sea Grant and Chesapeake Bay Program (2002).

Considering connectivity of disparate ecosystems within a watershed. Given at SUNYBinghamton (2001).

Zebra mussels and the threat to the Chesapeake Bay. Given at the Living Resources Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program meeting (2001).

Please pass the salt: Marine and brackish harpacticoids in Lake Michigan. Given at Duke Marine Laboratory (2000).

Linking the terrestrial and aquatic habitat: Macrophytes along a headwater stream.

Given at Minnesota State University (2000).

The European invasion that sparked a war: an exotic mollusk, zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), in Lake Michigan and its consequences. Given at Benedictine University (2000).

Determining sources of nutrient loadings and proposed monitoring program for Crystal Lake. Given to the Crystal Lake Association, Ludington Michigan (1999).

Linkages between ecosystems and how they affect species dispersal and processes in streams. Given at Dublin University Trinity College, Dublin (1999).

Role of macrophytes in the Breitenbach: Physical and microbial processes. Given at the Max Planck Institute for Limnology, River Station-Schlitz (1999).

Effects of flowing water on recruitment of Dreissena polymorpha. Given at Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Berlin (1998).

Dispersal of zebra mussels through streams in southern Michigan. Given at Hillsdale College, Michigan (1997).

Zebra mussels in an unexpected habitat-Small streams in North America. Given at the Max Planck Institute for Limnology, River Station-Schlitz (1997).

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP and ACTIVITY
Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences
American Conference of Academic Deans
Association of American Colleges & Universities
Past Discipline-specific Societies
Society for Freshwater Science (formally North American Benthological Society) • Public Information and Publicity Committee member (2002-2005) • International and Intersociety Interactions Committee member (1998-1999) International Society of Limnology (SIL)
• Working Group on Aquatic Invasive Species (2004-2015) American Society of Limnology and Oceanography
German Limnology Society

REVIEWING ACTIVITIES
Manuscripts
• Aquatic Botany; Aquatic Invasions; Archiv für Hydrobiologie; Biological Invasions; Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences; Ecological Applications; Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety; Freshwater Biology; Hydrobiologia; PG CC 2/16/22
144 of 470
Journal of Great Lakes Research; Journal of the North American Benthological Society; Lake and Reservoir Management; Limnology and Oceanography; Marine Biology; Polish Journal of Environmental Studies; Wetlands Textbooks
• Discover Biology, 3rd & 4th Edition; Essentials of Biology, 1st Edition; Biology:

Science for Life, 2nd Edition; What is Life?, 1st Edition; Biology: How Life Works, 1st Edition
Grant Proposals
• Sea Grant; NSF, Field Station Infrastructure
PG CC 2/16/22
145 of 470
Agenda No. 10 A

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: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Architectural Review Board Minutes: October 12, 2021 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
October Minutes
PG CC 2/16/22
146 of 470

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 3:00 P.M.

Held via Zoom – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA

DRAFT MINUTES

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Chair Gunby, Vice-Chair Coen, Member Wells, Member Gaino (joined at 5:14)

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
On a motion by Member Wells, seconded by Member Coen, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Two absences, Gaino joined at 5:14) to approve the Agenda and continue Item 8G to the December 14, 2021 meeting due to the story pole and netting not installed.

3. BOARD AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Laurel O’Halloran introduced Contract Planner Alec Barton and announced the City Council approved Hunter Eldridge, Architect, as the new ARB member. He will be attending the December 14, 2021, meeting.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Poduri was absent

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Lisa Ciani spoke wanting an update of the Archaeological Resource review and Tribal Monitoring protocol review.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. ARB August 10, 2021, Draft Minutes
Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the ARB's August 10, 2021, meeting as presented.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
On a motion by Chair Gunby, seconded by Vice Chair Coen, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Two absences) to approve the draft minutes.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E PG CC 2/16/22
147 of 470
Motion passed.

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Election of Secretary
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) elect a Secretary for a one-year term in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) § 3.02.050(b), Members.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
On a motion by Member Wells to nominate Member Gaino, seconded by Chair Gunby, the Board voted 4-0-1(One absence)
Motion passed.

B. Architectural Permit (AP) No. 21-0270 for 241 Chestnut Street Zoning District/General Plan Designation: Residential District (R-1) / Medium Density Residential (12.1 du/acre)
Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural Permit subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, Class 1, section 15301(e), Existing Facilities CEQA exemption.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
Laurel O’Halloran, Associate Planner, provided a staff report.

Jun Sillano, the project architect, spoke and answered Board members questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The following members of the public spoke on the item:

Lisa Ciani
The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Member Wells, seconded by Member Gaino, the Board voted 3-0-2 (Two DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E PG CC 2/16/22
148 of 470
absences, Chair Gunby had technical difficulties and was absent for the vote) to approve the project, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.

Motion passed.

C. Architectural Permit (AP) No. 21-0175 for 256 Crocker Avenue APN 006-392-020 Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1-B-3 Low Density 4.4 Du/ac Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural Permit 21-0175 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, Class 1, section 15301(e), Existing Facilities CEQA exemption.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
Laurel O’Halloran, Associate Planner, provided a staff report.

Steven Krebbs, the project architect, spoke and answered Board members questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The following members of the public spoke on the item:

David Huff
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Lisa Ciani
The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Member Wells, seconded by Member Gaino, the Board voted 4-0-1 (One absence) to continue the project to the December 14, 2021, ARB meeting to address the deck with the neighbors to consider downsizing and shifting, the neighbors cypress tree and to address smaller inconsistencies in the façade.

Motion passed.

D. Architectural Permit, Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (AP/UP/CDP 21-0294) for a property located at 711 Ocean View Boulevard
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGB/Medium-High Density Residential Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E PG CC 2/16/22
149 of 470
recommend approval to the Planning Commission (PC) of the proposed Architectural Permit, Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit (AP/UP/CDP 21-0294), subject to required Findings, Conditions of Approval, and a Class 1 CEQA Exemption prepared for the project.

Reference: Alec Barton, AICP, Contract Planner
Alec Barton, Contract Planner, provided a staff report.

Jeanne Byrne, the project architect, spoke and answered the Board’s questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The following members of the public spoke on the item:

Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Therese Schenk-McDonald
Lisa Ciani
Anthony Ciani
The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Member Wells, seconded by Member Coen, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Eldridge absent) to recommend approval of the item to the Planning Commission.

Motion passed.

E. Architectural Permit (AP), Administrative Use Permit (AUP) & Variance (VAR) 21-0355 for 806 19th St (APN 006-653-038)
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Medium Density Residential (7.3 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board review the project and forward a recommendation of approval for AP/AUP/VAR 21-0355 to the Planning Commission, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.

Reference: Alex Othon, Assistant Planner
Alex Othon, Assistant Planner, provided a staff report.

Allen Robinson, the project architect, spoke and answered the Board’s questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The following members of the public spoke on the item:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E PG CC 2/16/22
150 of 470
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Member Coen, seconded by Member Wells, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Eldridge absent) to approve the item subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.

Motion passed.

F. Architectural Permit (AP) 21-0390 for 1169 Forest Ave (APN 006-713-019) Zoning District/General Plan Designation: C-FH / Commercial Forest-Hill Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board approve AP 21-0390, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 3 CEQA exemption.

Reference: Alex Othon, Assistant Planner
Alex Othon, Assistant Planner, provided a staff report.

The project applicant, Sal Rona, answered the Boards questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Member Wells, seconded by Member Coen, the Board voted 4-0-1 (Eldridge absent) to approve the project, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 3 CEQA exemption.

Motion passed.

G. Architectural Permit (AP) No. 21-0322 for 1022 Balboa Avenue, APN 006-026-010 Zoning District/General Plan Designation: Residential District (R-1) / Medium Density Residential (7.3 du/acre)
Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural Permit 21-0322 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, Class 1, section 15301(e), Existing Facilities CEQA exemption.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 14, 2021, ARB MEETING DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E PG CC 2/16/22
151 of 470

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) No. 19-0655 for 1152 Forest (APN: 077-651-022)
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: Forest Hill Commercial Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, Class 3, Construction or Conversion of Small Structures
Recommended Action: Approve the Architectural Permit and an Administrative Use Permit subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 3, Sections 15303(b) and (c), Existing Facilities CEQA exemption.

Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
Laurel O’Halloran, Associate Planner, provided a staff report.

Mahesh Konduru, the owner, spoke and answered Board members questions.

The Chair opened the floor to public comment.

The following members of the public spoke on the item:

Inge Lorentzen Daumer
The Chair closed the floor to public comment.

The Board discussed the item.

On a motion by Chair Gunby, seconded by Member Gaino, the Board voted 4-0-1 (One absence) to approve the carwash portion of the project, subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 3 CEQA exemption and continue the duplex portion of the project to the December 14, 2021, ARB meeting to address the interior and exterior design.

10. NEW BUSINESS

11. PRESENTATIONS

12. NEXT MEETING - December 14, 2021

13. ADJOURNMENT 5:15

APPROVED BY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
Valerie Gaino, Secretary Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72AB62A6-346D-496E-A319-14950D92AD1E 12/20/2021
PG CC 2/16/22
152 of 470
Agenda No. 10 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: November 4 and December 9, 2021 Meetings
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
Approved PC Minutes 11-04-21
Approved PC Minutes 12-09-21
PG CC 2/16/22
153 of 470

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING
Thursday, November 4, 2021, 6:00 P.M.

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

MEETING MINUTES
This meeting was held via Zoom.

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – 6:00 pm.

Commissioners Present: Chair Lilley, Aeschliman, Sawyer, Bluhm, Chakwin, Byrne, Murphy

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
On a motion by Commissioner Byrne, seconded by Commissioner Aeschliman, the agenda was approved as presented (7-0-0)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Commissioner Chakwin thanked the City for holding the Housing Study Session Director Hunter introduced Joe Sidor, contract Senior Planner Director Hunter offered suggestions to help Commissioners find the PC meeting Zoom links Director Hunter announced that Alex Othon has been promoted to Associate Planner

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Coletti provided several updates on actions taken by the Council

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – the following members of the public provided comment:

Anthony Ciani
David Blaskovich
Joaquin
Lisa Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Mark Richards
1 PG CC 2/16/22
154 of 470
Moe Ammar
Peter Mounteer
2 PG CC 2/16/22
155 of 470

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes from the October 14, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Reference: Alex Othon, Assistant Planner
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and adopt the meeting minutes from the October 14, 2021, Planning Commission meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 On a motion by Byrne, seconded by Bluhm, the consent agenda is approved with minor corrections to the minutes. (7-0-0)

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP), Administrative Use Permit (AUP) & Variance (VAR) 21-0355 for 806 19th St (APN 006-653-038)
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve for AP/AUP/VAR 21-0355 subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption.

Reference: Alex Othon, Assistant Planner
After receiving an oral report from staff, the Chair asked for a brief presentation by the applicant. The architect for the project, Allen Robinson, provided information and answered questions. The Chair then opened the hearing to public comment. The following people provided comment on the project:

Anthony Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Lisa Ciani
After deliberation on the item, a motion to approve the project was made by Commissioner Byrne, seconded by Commissioner Chakwin and unanimously approved. (7-0-0) 3 PG CC 2/16/22
156 of 470
B. Architectural Permit, Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (AP/UP/CDP) 21- 0294 for House Remodel at 711 Ocean View Boulevard (APN: 006- 073-008) CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Recommended Action: Approval of the Combined Development Permit (Architectural Permit, Use Permit, Coastal Development Permit - AP/UP/CDP 21-0294) for 711 Ocean View Boulevard (006-073-008), subject to findings and conditions; and a Class 1 CEQA Exemption (Existing Facilities)
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Byrne recused as she is the architect for the project. Commissioner Chakwin disclosed ex parte communication with the owner. Planner Sidor provided an oral report and answered questions of the Commissioners. Jeanne Byrne provided a brief presentation and answered questions. Chair Lilley opened the public comment period and the following members of the public provided comments:

Anthony Ciani
Lisa Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
After deliberation, a motion to approve the project is made by Commissioner Chakwin, seconded by Commissioner Bluhm. The motion passes on a 6-0-1 vote with Byrne recused.

The Chair called a 10-minute break at 7:43 pm. The meeting reconvened at 7:53 pm.

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Subdivision for Condominium and Use Permit for 520 Lighthouse Ave (File TTM/UP 21-0141); APN 006-178-009. This item was continued from the October 14, 2021, Planning Commission meeting.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects
Recommended Action: Deny the tentative tract map (TTM) and Use Permit (UP) due to inconsistency with Chapter 23.45 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC).

Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Director
Chair Lilley disclosed ex parte communication with Dan Silverie (owner) and Rodney Romius (project foreman); Commissioner Byrne disclosed ex parte communication with the original architect and previous owner. Director Hunter provided an oral report and answered questions.

Tony Lombardo, on behalf of the applicant, provided a presentation and answered Commissioner questions. The Chair then opened the item for public comment and the following individuals provided comments on the item:
4 PG CC 2/16/22
157 of 470
Moe Ammar
Peter Mounteer
Mark Richards
Alex Lorca
Greg Zimmerman Lisa Ciani
Anthony Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Phil Johnson
Victoria Arroyo
Dan Silverie
The Chair closed the public hearing portion of the item. After deliberating on the item and noting that, since findings and conditions of approval were not included due to the staff recommendation of denial, and that the item would need to be continued, a motion was made by Commissioner Byrne to reflect an intent to approve the project subject to findings and conditions of approval that would be brought back for the Commission’s consideration at its December 9, 2021, meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Chakwin and unanimously approved (7-0-0).

B. Provide a Recommendation to the City Council on Amendments to PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units. This Item was Continued from the Commission's 7-08-21, Meeting.

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single- or Multi-Family Residential Zone
Recommended Action: Receive the draft amendments to PGMC 23.80 and recommend that the City Council approve as presented.

Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Director
Secretary Sawyer walked the Commission through the draft Ordinance and explained proposed changes. The Chair asked for public comment. The following individual addressed the Commission:

Anthony Ciani
The Chair closed public comment and returned the item to the Commission for discussion. On a motion by Commissioner Byrne and a second by Commissioner Murphy, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the City Council. (7- 0-0)

10. NEW BUSINESS - None

11. PRESENTATIONS - None

12. NEXT MEETING – November 18 (Special Meeting) and December 9, 2021 (Regular Meeting)

13. ADJOURNMENT – 9:53 by Chair Lilley
5 PG CC 2/16/22
158 of 470

PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, December 9, 2021, 6:00 P.M.

Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA This meeting was held via Zoom webinar.

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.

Commissioners Present: Aeschliman, Bluhm, Chakwin, Murphy, Sawyer, Chair Lilley. Absent: Byrne

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – On a motion by Vice Chair Chakwin, seconded by Commissioner Bluhm, the agenda was unanimously approved on a roll call vote. (6-0-1, Byrne absent)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Vice Chair Chakwin expressed his appreciation for fellow Commissioners and wished all a happy holiday season;
B. Commissioner Murphy provided an update on the activities of the Housing Advisory Group; C. Commissioner Sawyer announced that she attended an APA webinar on SB 9; D. Chair Lilley thanked Vice Chair Chakwin for his service chairing the ATC meetings and commended the Commissioners, staff, and public for the hard work on the ATC project.

E. Director Hunter noted that the Commission’s November 18th denial of the ATC project has been both appealed by the applicant and called-up by the City Council. A hearing date has not yet been determined.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti updated the Commission on the Council’s discussion regarding potential ballot measures moving forward and mentioned the appeal/call-up of the ATC project.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – the following individuals provided public comment:

Anthony Ciani
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Lisa Ciani

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY - None

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Approval of the Minutes of the PC's November 18, 2021, Special Meeting Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
1 PG CC 2/16/22
159 of 470
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Planning Commission's November 18, 2021, Special Meeting as presented.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 On a motion by Commissioner Aeschliman, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, the consent agenda was unanimously approved. (6-0-1, Byrne absent)

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Approve the Tent. Tract Map and Use Permit (21-0141) for Condominiums at 520 Lighthouse Ave. This item was continued from the November 4, 2021, meeting.

From: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
CEQA: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301k and 15332 Recommended Action: Approve the Tentative Tract Map and Use Permit based on findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 and 32 CEQA exemptions for Existing Facilities and In-Fill Development, respectively.

Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
After receiving an oral report by Director Hunter and testimony from the applicant’s counsel, Tony Lombardo, Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment:

Alex Lorca
Inge Lorentzen Daumer
Lisa Ciani
Anthony Ciani
Chair Lilley closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation. After discussing the details of the project, a motion to approve with an amendment to the title on the permit to read “Tentative Tract Map and Use Permit (TTM/UP) 21-0141 for Ten (10) Condominiums and Mixed-Use Project” was made by Vice Chair Chakwin, seconded by Commissioner Bluhm, and unanimously approved. (6-0-1, Byrne absent)

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Planning Commission's Ordinance and Policy Subcommittee
From: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral report from Chair Lilley on the activities of the Planning Commission's Ordinance and Policy Subcommittee and provide direction to the subcommittee.

Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
2 PG CC 2/16/22
160 of 470
The Subcommittee did not have a report to provide at this meeting.

B. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Planning Commission's Planning Subcommittee and Renew the Subcommittee
From: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the subcommittee from Chair Lilley and provide direction on next steps, including renewing the subcommittee's membership and mandate, if so desired by the Commission.

Reference: Alyson Hunter, AICP, CDD Director
The Subcommittee did not have a report to provide at this meeting. The following individuals provided public comment:

Anthony Ciani
On a motion by Commissioner Sawyer, seconded by Vice Chair Chakwin, the Commission unanimously renewed the Subcommittee for another six (6) months and agreed to appoint a new membership in February. (6-0-1, Byrne absent)

10. NEW BUSINESS - None

11. PRESENTATIONS - None

12. NEXT MEETING - January 13, 2022

13. ADJOURNMENT – By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 7:24 pm. 3 PG CC 2/16/22
161 of 470
Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rob Mullane, AICP, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way on Sloat Avenue Pursuant to §§ 8300-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code
CEQA: Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDATION
Hold a public hearing and approve a resolution authorizing the vacation of excess right-of-way (ROW) for a portion of Sloat Avenue pursuant to Sections 8830-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

DISCUSSION
On January 12, 2022, the City Council approved the planning permits for the American Tin Cannery Hotel and Commercial development (together, the “ATC Development”), certified the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and adopted a resolution declaring the City’s intent to vacate excess ROW on Sloat Avenue. Upon adoption of a resolution declaring the intent to vacate excess ROW, a subsequent resolution authorizing the vacation action is required. A resolution authorizing the vacation of excess ROW has been prepared and is included as Attachment 1. This item was continued from the City Council’s meeting of February 2, 2022, at which time, the public hearing was opened and then continued to this evening’s meeting.

The vacation of public road ROWs is governed by California Streets and Highways Code (CSHC) Sections 8300 through 8368. The project proposes to utilize a portion of the Sloat Avenue ROW between Eardley and Dewey Avenues for hotel purposes. Under the CSHC, the vacation of a public road ROW is a two-step process, both of which require public hearings and action by resolution of the City Council. In the first step, the City Council must pass a resolution of intent to vacate the ROW. The resolution of intent states the City’s intention to vacate the ROW and sets a hearing date for the consideration of the ROW vacation itself.

In the second step, the City Council must pass a resolution authorizing the vacation of excess ROW. It is this second step that is now before the City Council for action. The ATC Development project includes use of the segment of Sloat Avenue between Eardley and Dewey Avenues for hotel uses and development. As noted in Resolution 22-___, the ATC Development has received City approval of the requisite planning permits; however, the project must receive the associated building permits before the subject section of Sloat Avenue would no longer be needed and considered excess ROW.

The City and the ATC project developer are in negotiations on a real property agreement that would PG CC 2/16/22
162 of 470
compensate the City for the fair market value of ROW, and the vacation of the excess ROW is contingent upon the City Council’s approval of the real property agreement.

Resolution 22-___ includes Exhibits A and B, both of which refer to “Sloats Avenue,” rather than “Sloat Avenue.” The name of the street as shown on 1909 map filed for this area of Pacific Grove is Sloats Avenue. Over time, the “s” in Sloats has been dropped in common usage, and this street is currently known as Sloat Avenue.

Environmental Review under CEQA
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH # 2019110152) was prepared for this project, including the proposed uses and development within the Sloat Avenue ROW. The City Council certified the project’s EIR on January 12, 2022. No additional CEQA analysis is required for the authorization of vacation of excess ROW.

Recommended Motion
It is recommended the City Council adopt the resolution attached to this agenda report as Attachment 1.

The recommended motion is as follows:

I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 22-___, CONDITIONALLY AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF

EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON SLOAT AVENUE, EXCEPTING AND

RESERVING RIGHTS FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES.

1. OPTIONS
The Council may decide not to vacate the subject portion of the Sloat Ave. ROW.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact to the City relating to the proposed vacation as the revenue from the existing parking meters is included in the fair market purchase price and all utility and street improvements needed for the approved hotel project will be borne by the project developer as indicated in the project's conditions of approval.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Resolution to Vacate
PG CC 2/16/22
163 of 470
RESOLUTION NO. 22-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE,

CALIFORNIA CONDITIONALLY AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF EXCESS

RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ON SLOAT AVENUE, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING

RIGHTS FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES

WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) passed Resolution No. 22-003 on January 12, 2022, declaring its intention to vacate the excess public right-of-way easement on the real property located on Sloat Avenue (the “Excess Right-of-Way”), which is approximately 26,778 square feet and adjacent to the proposed American Tin Cannery Hotel and Commercial development (together, the “ATC Development”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed adjacent ATC Development includes certain development and uses on a portion of the Excess Right-of-Way which the City will no longer need to maintain once the ATC Development is approved and constructed; and
WHEREAS, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on January 12, 2022, for the ATC Development (SCH #2019110152) and made the requisite CEQA findings for the certification of the EIR. The EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the project including the development and uses of the subject Excess Right-Of-Way, and as such, no additional CEQA review is required; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2021 and November 18, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the ATC Development and reviewed the vacation for conformity with the General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65402; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2022, the City Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision on the ATC Development and reviewed the vacation for conformity with the General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65402. The City Council found the vacation of the subject Excess Right-of-Way to be in conformance with the City’s General Plan; and WHEREAS, Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, allows the City Council to adopt a resolution vacating excess street right-of-ways that are no longer required for street purposes, excepting and reserving rights for existing and proposed public utility facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Excess Right-of-Way described in both legal and map form in Exhibits A and B, is no longer needed for street purposes should the ATC Development receive all necessary Planning entitlements and Building Permits as well as approvals for any associated relocation or rerouting of existing public and private utilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the staff report and public comments, if any, and desires to vacate the Excess Right-of-Way.

PG CC 2/16/22
164 of 470

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND, DETERMINED, AND RESOLVED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby elects to proceed under and pursuant to the provision of Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, and in particular, Sections 8324 thereof, and hereby orders the vacation of the Excess Right-of-Way described in Exhibit A, and shown on the plot labeled Exhibit B, attached hereto.

SECTION 3. This resolution shall take effect only upon, and the vacation of the Excess Right-of-Way is conditioned upon and shall not be effective until, the occurrence of all of the following:
a. Developer of the ATC Development has submitted a plan or plans for utility relocation and maintenance (including the temporary protection or provision for utility connection to adjacent properties throughout the course of construction) of existing public and private utilities, including but not limited to fiber optics owned by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation, which is approved by the City and the appropriate utility; and
b. The City and Developer have entered into a legally binding Disposition and Development Agreement for the conveyance of the City’s interest in the land underlying the existing easement. If the City and Developer do not enter into such Disposition and Development Agreement this Resolution will be null and void; and
c. The City has to its reasonable satisfaction determined that the existing rights of the property owners on the south side of the Excess Right-of-Way, including the right to access, use, and develop their parcels now and in the future, consistent with state and local law, have been maintained or an alternative arrangement has been made consistent with the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement.
d. Pursuant to that Disposition and Development Agreement the City’s interest in the land underlying the Excess Right-of-Way has been conveyed from the City to the Developer; and
e. This resolution has been recorded by the City Clerk with the Monterey County Recorder following the Close of Escrow, as that term is defined in the Disposition and Development Agreement, and the City’s interest in the underlying property has been quit claimed from the City to the Developer.

SECTION 4. That from and after the date this resolution is recorded, the Excess Right-ofWay is vacated and no longer constitutes a public right-of-way.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Resolution.

PG CC 2/16/22
165 of 470
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
David C. Laredo, City Attorney
PG CC 2/16/22
166 of 470
Exhibit A
PG CC 2/16/22
167 of 470
Sloats Legal Page | 1
EXHIBIT “A”

SLOATS AVENUE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Certain real property situate in the City of Pacific Grove, County of Monterey, State of California, described as follows:

Being a portion of that certain street shown as Sloats Avenue on that certain map filed on August 17, 1909 as Volume 2 Cities and Towns at Page 21 of said County, more particularly described as follows:

Being all that right of way of Sloats Avenue lying between Eardley Avenue and Dewey Avenue.

Containing an area of 0.61 acres, more or less.

Attached hereto is a plat to accompany legal description, and by this reference made a part hereof

END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY:

WHITSON ENGINEERS
______________________________________________
RICHARD P. WEBER P.L.S.

L.S. NO. 8002
Job No.: 3400.00
PG CC 2/16/22
168 of 470
Exhibit B
PG CC 2/16/22
169 of 470
&LYLO(QJLQHHULQJ
/DQG6XUYH\LQJ
+DUULV&RXUW
0RQWHUH\&$

ZKLWVRQHQJLQHHUVFRP
(;+,%,7B
6/2$7$9(18($5($352326('72%(9$&$7('
3$&,),&*529(&$/,)251,$
/($6( /($6( /($6( /($6( 352326(')259$&$7,21
PG CC 2/16/22
170 of 470
Agenda No. 11 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Anastacia Wyatt, Senior Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Application CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Public Hearing on the State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to solicit public input on possible competitive and over the counter activities to be included in the application, and

1. Approve Housing staff to submit an application and resolution approving a funding application and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments to the State CDBG Program.

2. DISCUSSION
Vista Point Apartments
Vista Point Apartments (the Project) is a 49-unit affordable housing development for seniors located in Pacific Grove, California. Vista Point was placed in service in May 2006 and the Project was built on land owned by and leased from the City of Pacific Grove.The Property is owned by Jewell Avenue Associates (the Partnership), a California limited partnership, which was formed in September 2002 to acquire, construct, develop, own, and operate the Project.The Partnership is controlled by its general partner, Vista Point LLC, whose sole member, Eden South Bay Inc., is under the control of the board of directors Eden Housing, Inc. (EHI), a nonprofit public benefit corporation. Property management and accounting of the Project is contracted with Eden Housing Management, Inc (EHMI), an affiliate of Eden Housing. Additionally, resident services are contracted with Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI).

Project Affordability
The Project participates in the low-income housing tax credit program under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code as modified by the State of California. Additionally, the project was financed with funds from CalHFA, HCD Home program, an AHP Loan through MUFG Union Bank and an Eden Housing loan. The Project is also supported by a HAP contract with the Housing Authority of the County of Monterey for 38 project-based vouchers. The Project’s affordability requirements are regulated by CalHFA, HOME and TCAC.

Application Scope
Vista Point Apartments is a beautiful property that has been well-maintained but does have a need for a multitude of capital projects.The multi-family housing development consists of three stories and the PG CC 2/16/22
171 of 470
multitude of capital projects.The multi-family housing development consists of three stories and the scope of work consists of painting the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Floor corridors and painting site spaces and offices including: restrooms, kitchen, front desk, trash rooms, and the managers office. In addition, the stoves and refrigerators need replacement in the residential units. Costs will include taxes and recycling fees. Additional capital needs include new benches in shared open space on the property, landscape and irrigation improvements and conversion of electric to HVAC systems to improve energy efficiency to have a positive impact on the environment and reduce energy costs and efficiency.

Application
City staff worked directly with HCD staff on the draft application and to determine the best uses of spending the additional Program Income by July 31, 2023. Additional CDBG funding from a 2017 grant in the amount of $500,000 has not been spent due to the amount of Program Income on hand. This application will help the City spend down dollars within the July 31, 2023 deadline and benefit low-income seniors in the community. It will also allow the 2017 grant funds in the amount of $500,000 to be spent on owner occupied housing rehabilitation activities. In total, the City has approximately $1,000,000 in CDBG funding that must be spent by July 31, 2023.

The Attached Resolution is in the required State CDBG format. Applicants are required to use this resolution in content and form.

OPTIONS
The City must spend the CDBG program income funding prior to July 31, 2023 or lose the funding. The City could choose to allow the state to take back the $500,000 in program income funding and the City would lose the ability to spend these dollars in the City.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Submitting the application for program income funds to the state CDBG program would ensure the City's program income dollars stay in the City and are spent on eligible CDBG programs that can be expended in the allotted state timeframe with a deadline of July 31, 2023. Submitting this application would also allow for the 2017 grant funds to be expended on owner-occupied housing rehabilitation.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Increase Affordable Housing: Determine policies, projects and programs that will advance the effort to create new affordable housing in the City.

Attachments
CDBG Application Resolution
CDBG Application Power Point
PG CC 2/16/22
172 of 470
Resolution of the City of Pacific Grove
Applicants are required to use this Resolution in content and form.

RESOLUTION NO.__

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING AND THE

EXECUTION OF A GRANT AGREEMENT AND ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO FROM THE 2020-2021 FUNDING YEAR OF THE STATE CDBG

PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove as follows:

SECTION 1:

The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves the submission to the State of California of one or more “program income only” application(s) in the aggregate amount, not to exceed, of $500,000 for the following CDBG activities, pursuant to the January 2021 CDBG NOFA:

List activities and amounts
Examples:

Multi-Family Rehabilitation $ 500,000
SECTION 2:

The City hereby approves the use of Program Income in an amount not to exceed $500,000 for the CDBG activities described in Section 1.

SECTION 3:

The City acknowledges compliance with all state and federal public participation requirements in the development of its application(s).

SECTION 4:

The City hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager, or designee*, to execute and deliver all applications and act on the City's behalf in all matters pertaining to all such applications.

SECTION 5:

PG CC 2/16/22
173 of 470
If an application is approved, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to enter into, execute and deliver the grant agreement (i.e., Standard Agreement) and any and all subsequent amendments thereto with the State of California for the purposes of the grant.

SECTION 6:

If an application is approved, the City Manager, or designee, is authorized to sign and submit Funds Requests and all required reporting forms and other documentation as may be required by the State of California from time to time in connection with the grant.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove held on February 16, 2021 by the following vote:

Instruction: Fill in all four vote-count fields below. If none, indicate “0” for that field.

AYES: _____ NOES: _____
ABSENT: _____ ABSTAIN: _____
__________________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor of the City of Pacific Grove
State of California

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
City of Pacific Grove
I, Sandra Kandell, City Clerk of the City of Pacific Grove, State of California, hereby certify the above and foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by said City Council on this 16th day of February, 2022.

Sandra Kandell_____________
Name, City Clerk of the City of
Pacific Grove
State of California
By: _________________________
Sandra Kandell, City Clerk of the City of Pacific Grove PG CC 2/16/22
174 of 470
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PG CC 2/16/22
175 of 470
February 16, 2022, City Council
City of Pacific Grove
CDBG Program Income
Application and Public
Hearing
Vista Point Senior Housing
Improvements
PG CC 2/16/22
176 of 470
City Council Action
 Conduct a Public Hearing on the State Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program.
 Approve Application submittal to the State CDBG
Program
PG CC 2/16/22
177 of 470
Public Noticing
The Public Notice for CDBG funding was
published in the following papers:
 Monterey Herald on December 27, 2021
The Weekly on December 23, 2021
The noticing exceeded the 30-day
requirement.

PG CC 2/16/22
178 of 470
The City of Pacific Grove has approximately
$500,000 in CDBG Program Income that
must be expended by July 31, 2023.

PG CC 2/16/22
179 of 470
Program Income Application -Vista Point Senior
Housing
 Vista Point is a 49-unit
affordable housing
development for seniors
 Opened in May 2006
 Was built on land owned
by and leased from the
City of Pacific Grove.

PG CC 2/16/22
180 of 470
Property management and accounting of the
Project is contracted with Eden Housing
Management, Inc (EHMI), an affiliate of Eden
Housing.
Resident services are contracted with Eden
Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI).

Property Management and
Resident Services
PG CC 2/16/22
181 of 470
Project Affordability
 The Project is supported
by a contract with the
Housing Authority of the
County of Monterey for
38 project-based voucher
contracts for a term of 20
years.

PG CC 2/16/22
182 of 470
Application Scope
The multi-family housing development consists of three
stories and the scope of work consists of:
 Painting interior common areas
 Painting restrooms, kitchen, front desk, trash rooms, and the managers office.
 Appliances will be replaced
 New outside benches
 Landscape and irrigation improvements; and
 Conversion of electric to HVAC systems to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs
PG CC 2/16/22
183 of 470
Application
 City staff worked directly with HCD staff on the draft application and to determine the best uses of spending
the additional Program Income by July 31, 2023
PG CC 2/16/22
184 of 470
Questions?
PG CC 2/16/22
185 of 470
Agenda No. 11 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Amendment to AP/UP 16-203 previously-approved AP/UP 16-203 (Council Resolution No. 18-030; September 5, 2018)
CEQA: Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Amendment (No. 21-0457) to the previously-approved AP/UP 16-203 (Council Resolution No. 18-030; September 5, 2018). The proposed Amendment is in substantial conformance with the original project, which demonstrated consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

DISCUSSION

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is located on the southerly side of Central Ave. between Grand and Fountain Avenues. Amendment Application No. 21-0457, also referred to as Pacific Grove Hotel (formerly referred to as Hotel Durell), would modify the previously-approved Architectural Permit and Use Permit Application No. AP/UP 16-203 which proposed to demolish an existing 17,500 square foot building and 26 space asphalt parking lot, and build a 116-room hotel with a total gross floor area of 76,182 square feet, as well as subsurface and off-site parking. The hotel will include the standard high-end lodging amenities including restaurant, gym, spa, meeting room, etc. Vehicular access would allow entrance from and exit onto Fountain Avenue. The subject site is not located in the City’s coastal zone.

This Amendment would:

Reduce the number of guest rooms from 116 to 102 (i.e., net decrease of 14 guest rooms), ranging in size from 305 to 908 square feet;

1. Increase the guest room interior ceiling height from 8 feet to 9 feet while maintaining the overall main structure height at 40 feet (certain roof appurtenances would exceed 40 feet in height - see below for additional detail);

2. 3. Delete Condition No. 4 regarding off-site parking;

4. Revise Condition No. 12 to allow 2 specific uses on the roof; and

5. Allow certain roof appurtenances to slightly exceed the previously-approved height exceptions.

Project elements that would remain the same as currently approved include building coverage, total gross floor area, and exterior colors and materials.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
PG CC 2/16/22
186 of 470
The project site is located in the City’s commercial downtown and is surrounded by the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History to the west, Jewell Park to the northwest, the Holman Building on the south and the Pacific Grove Library to the north. Commercial buildings are located on the east side of the project site.

The site is designated Commercial in the General Plan and zoned C-1-T which allows for a variety of uses including hotels, commercial retail, restaurants and on-site parking. The C-1-T Light Commercial and Hotel zoning district was created through an approval of Ordinance 1951 by a public vote of Pacific Grove citizens on June 7, 1994. The site is also located in a Parking District created in 1962 which was established by Resolution 4272 for public convenience and necessity and serves the downtown commercial area.

REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT AMENDMENTS
A detailed explanation of the proposed amendments follows:

1. Reduction in Number of Guest Rooms
The applicant’s goal in requesting these modifications is to provide the community of Pacific Grove with a higher quality hotel than originally proposed by replacing outdated design features. By reducing the room count, the width of the guest rooms may be expanded from 12’ to 13’- 9” which is the current minimum standard for luxury hotels. This reduction in the number of guest rooms will also result in the need for less water. The details of water use can be viewed in the Promissory Agreement documents approved by the City Council on February 2, 2022.

2. Increase Guest Room Ceiling Height
Increasing the ceiling height allows the hotel to meet the current 4-star or better rating. The result of these modifications would be the construction of a higher-end luxury boutique hotel that would allow higher occupancy rates without increasing the building footprint or square footage.

3. Off-Site Parking (previous Condition No. 4)
As amended, the project eliminates the previously proposed surface parking lot across from the hotel on Fountain Avenue and proposes to accommodate all required parking spaces on-site. As currently approved, the hotel would provide a total of 93 spaces (51 on-site, 14 dedicated Holman spaces, and 28 off-site).

The proposed amendment would increase the total number of parking spaces from 93 to 112 (98 on-site and 14 dedicated Holman spaces), while eliminating the need for the 28 off-site spaces on a surface lot across Fountain Avenue, resulting in a net increase of 19 parking spaces and eliminating the requirement for Condition No. 4.

The number of on-site spaces would be increased by 47 through the use of mechanical lifts in the valet parking area on the ground floor of the hotel. Valets will no longer need to cross Fountain Avenue to park or return vehicles to guests, thereby increasing employee safety and guest convenience.

Elimination of the surface lot also improves aesthetics (i.e., reduces visual impacts) in a shopping and dining district of the City. Also, potential impacts to guest vehicles would be reduced. See additional detail below under Conditions of Approval.

4. Allowed Roof Activities
Condition No. 12 (Roof Top) would be amended to allow 2 specific uses on the roof. As amended, the following activities would be allowed on the rooftop: small yoga classes in the morning or at sunset not exceeding 10 guests and 1 instructor; a small garden for the hotel restaurant chef to grow organic herbs and plants; and routine maintenance and repair. No other activities would be allowed on the rooftop, PG CC 2/16/22
187 of 470
and no amplified sound(s) would be allowed at any time. The original intent was to eliminate the potential for noisy activities on the roof such as from a bar or pool area. The proposed uses are passive and would not generate sounds above limited conversation and instruction.

5. Roof Appurtenances and Height Exceptions
As amended, certain roof appurtenances would slightly exceed the previously-approved height exceptions. Per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) section 23.64.120, roof appurtenances may be permitted in excess of height limits provided a use permit is first obtained in each case. The City Council approved such a use permit in 2018, and this amendment would modify that previous approval.

The original design included approval for certain roof appurtenances to exceed to the height limit of 40 feet. Gables and parapets facing Central Avenue were previously approved at approximately 40’- 4”; elevator and stair towers were previously approved at 40’- 8” and 42’- 2”; and a chimney was previously approved at 43’ – 8”. As amended, the gables and parapets facing Central Avenue would increase to approximately 43’- 0” and 43’- 4”, respectively; the elevator and stair towers would increase to 43’- 8” and 45’- 2”; a gable facing Fountain Avenue would increase to 41’- 5”; a gable facing Grand Avenue would increase to 42’- 0”; a decorative tower would increase to 42’- 9”; and the chimney would increase to 46’- 8”. All of these increases are directly related to the proposed increase of the ceiling heights in the guest rooms.

Conditions of Approval
In addition to the scope changes identified above, conditions of approval would be deleted, added, or modified to reflect the amended project scope and changes to standard condition language.

The following condition of approval is proposed for deletion:

Previous Condition of Approval No. 4: Deed Restriction. Prior to Building Permit submittal, record a deed restriction on the lot directly adjacent to the subject site located on Fountain Ave and Ricketts Row (APN 006-174-011; 006-174-012; 006-174-003), also known as the Fountain Parking Lot, requiring the lot’s exclusive use for off-site parking for the use of Hotel Durell for the duration of AP/UP 16-203.

As amended, the project eliminates the requirement for off-site parking. Therefore, this condition of approval may be deleted because all required parking spaces will now be accommodated on-site. The change also reduces potential impacts identified in the EIR related to auto and pedestrian traffic on Fountain Avenue.

The following conditions of approval are proposed to be added:

New Condition of Approval No. 4: Operational Permit. As amended, AP/UP 21-0457 shall become the operational permit and all conditions of approval shall be cleared under this amendment.

This condition confirms that the amendment, upon approval by the City Council, is the operational permit for development of the project and clearing of conditions of approval.

New Condition of Approval No. 14: Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. If such artifacts are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted until the item(s) can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.

This current standard condition adds protection for the unexpected discovery of cultural artifacts to ensure they are treated with respect and dignity.

Thefollowing conditions of approval are proposed to be modified to conform to current standard condition language, City practice, and/or to reflect the amended project information(if applicable, the PG CC 2/16/22
188 of 470
previous condition no. is provided in parentheses):

Condition of Approval No. 1: Permit Expiration
Updated to conform to current City practice of allowing a two-year timeframe for submitting a building permit application.

Condition of Approval No. 2: Conformance to Plans
Updated to reflect the current plan set and current department name.

Condition of Approval No. 5: Valet Parking
Updated to remove the 2nd sentence which is not relevant to the condition.

Condition of Approval No. 6: Employee Parking
Revised to reflect the requirement for hotel employees to use the City’s Municipal parking lots.

Condition of Approval No. 11: Pedestrian Safety
Revised to allow the City flexibility in scheduling and funding the intersection improvements within the Capital Improvement Plan.

Condition of Approval No. 12: Roof Top (see below for additional detail) Revised to reflect the activities allowed under the amended project.

Condition of Approval No. 13: Archaeology
Updated to conform to current standard condition language.

Condition of Approval No. 15 (14): Tribal Consultation
Updated to conform to current standard condition language.

Condition of Approval No. 16 (15): Terms and Conditions Updated to reflect the current condition language and current department name.

Condition of Approval No. 17 (16): Public Works, Fire, and Building Updated to reflect the current condition language and current division name.

Condition of Approval No. 19 (18): Building Plans
Updated to reflect the current division name.

Condition of Approval No. 20 (19): Indemnification
Updated to conform to current City practice.

Condition of Approval No. 22 (21): Bulbouts
Revised to include a requirement for construction prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Condition of Approval No. 23 (22): Trip Reduction Measures Updated to reflect the amended project scope (i.e., elimination of the Fountain Street surface parking lot).

No changes are proposed to be made to the following conditions of approval (if applicable, previous condition no. is provided in parentheses): Condition Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 (17), and 21 (20).

General Plan Goals and Policies
PG CC 2/16/22
189 of 470
The Pacific Grove General Plan provides a framework for future growth and development within the City. The Land Use Element includes goals and polices that call for the orderly, well-planned, and balanced development consistent with the historic nature of Pacific Grove, the capacity of the City’s infrastructure, and ability to assimilate new growth.

The subject site is designated Commercial in the City’s General Plan. Specific General Plan Land Use Policies relevant to the proposed project include the following:

Chapter 2 - Land Use
Policy 2: Ensure that new development is compatible with adjacent existing development.

Policy 3: Balance a property owner’s ability to develop with the desirability of maintaining neighborhood character.

Program T: Provide for expanded uses for the former Holman’s block such as mixed commercial/residential use and /or transient visitor services (i.e. hotel/restaurant/shops).

Policy 12: Promote and maintain a healthy local economy while preserving the local community character.

Policy 14: Promote Pacific Grove businesses and industries.

Policy 16: Attract and retain a variety of businesses and services in the community.

Policy 18: Support hotel development in the former Holman’s Block of the downtown, as allowed by adoption of an initiative measure by city voters in June 1994.

The Council approved the hotel on September 5, 2018. The proposed amendments are in substantial conformance with the previously-approved permits, and continues to support the General Plan policies and programs.

Land Use and Zoning Code Regulations
The City of Pacific Grove Zoning Code designates the parcel as Light Commercial/Hotel/Condominium (C-1-T). The C-1-T zoning district was enacted by citizen initiative approved in 1994. The intent of the C-1-T district as described by the initiative is as follows:

It is the intent of the people of the city of Pacific Grove in enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter to establish a zone district in the City’s downtown area where hotel use is permitted, as are all other uses listed in the C-1 district of this code, as said district may be from time to time amended by the council. The people have determined that the area of downtown defined by subsection (b) (2) of this section is appropriate for hotel development. Further, except as modified by this chapter, all provisions of the motel/hotel ballot measure enacted by the people at the June 3, 1986, special municipal election, as set out in Chapter 23.52 PGMC, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

As amended, the proposed hotel main structure conforms to the required 40-foot height, the proposed setbacks meet the zoning district requirements and the site coverage maximum is not exceeded.

Amendment Permit Processing
The proposed project is an Amendment to both an Architectural Permit and Use Permit (AP and UP).

Per section 23.72.020, the Pacific Grove Zoning Code permits concurrent permit processing to allow for a clear permitting and decision-making path. Because the City Council was the final review authority for the original project, this amendment returns to Council for consideration.

BACKGROUND
Public Meetings and Hearings
The original project was brought before a variety of committees and boards, as summarized below.

Each public meeting/hearing was noticed in conformance with PGMC Section 23.86.

PG CC 2/16/22
190 of 470
EIR Scoping Meeting - April 4, 2017
Site Plan Review Committee - January 11, 2017
Architectural Review Board - March 27, 2018
Planning Commission - April 5, April 19, and May 17, 2018 City Council Call Up - June 6, 2018
City Council - September 5, 2018

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the agency determines that substantial changes are proposed or substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. In this case, no new information has been presented to warrant further environmental review, and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.

Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, a project does not require a subsequent EIR if the following conditions apply:
1) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts;
2) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and
3) No new information of substantial importance has been provided which was not known at the time of the previous EIR.

As amended, the project is consistent with the previously-certified final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Hotel Durell Project, and would reduce potential impacts related to traffic, parking, and water use.

GOAL ALIGNMENT
The project aligns with Goal 6 Revitalize Downtown. The subject site is currently developed with a single-story commercial building and 26-space parking lot. The 1994 General Plan and approved Zoning District allow a hotel use. The form and scale of the project are in conformance with the General Plan and zoning district. The project furthers many General Plan goals that are in alignment with this goal.

OPTIONS

1. Deny the proposed amendment.

2. Direct the applicant to revise the proposed amendment subject to Council direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

As amended, the proposed project would generate additional Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Unlike property taxes, 100% of the TOT goes directly to the City’s General Fund and is available to fund a wide variety of services and projects for public benefit. In addition, sales tax would be generated by the hotel restaurant and a portion of the increased property tax would accrue to the City.

The developer has provided the following five-year estimate of Gross Revenues from lodging, along with the City's estimated TOT revenues.

PG CC 2/16/22
191 of 470
with the City's estimated TOT revenues.
2024: $9,591,937 at 12% TOT = $1,151,032
2025: $10,702,583 at 12% TOT = $1,284,310
2026: $11,687,108 at 12% TOT = $1,402,453
2027: $12,324,612 at 12% TOT = $1,478,953
2028: $12,570,825 at 12% TOT = $1,508,499
___________________________________
FIVE YEAR TOT ESTIMATE = $6,825,247
GOAL ALIGNMENT: See Goal Alignment within Discussion section.

Attachments
Draft Resolution
Plan Set
Council Resolution No. 18-030
Application and Letter
Link to Final EIR for Hotel Durell Project
PG CC 2/16/22
192 of 470
RESOLUTION NO. 22-
AMENDMENT (PERMIT # 21-0457) OF ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT AND USE PERMIT AP AND UP #16-203 TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 17,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND BUILD A 102 GUEST ROOM, 76,182 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL PURSUANT TO PGMC §23.31.020
FACTS

1. The subject site (i.e., the hotel site) is located at 157 Grand Avenue, Pacific Grove, 93950 APN 006-173-002.

2. The subject site has a designation of Light Commercial/ Hotel/Condominium District on the adopted City of Pacific Grove General Plan Land Use Map.

3. The project site is located in the C-I-T zoning district. The C-1-T zoning district was created through an approval of Ordinance 1951 by a public vote of Pacific Grove citizens on June 7, 1994.

4. The property is located in the Downtown Pacific Grove Business District per Chapter

6.50 of the City’s Municipal Code, the 1961 Downtown Parking District and the Area of Special Biological Significance.

5. The subject site (i.e., the hotel site) is approximately 0.77 acres (33,875 square feet).

6. As amended, the proposed project provides 98 on-site valet parking spaces using car lifts for 84 of the spaces. The proposed project is also providing 14 spaces at the back of the hotel to meet a condition of the Holman Building approval. Those spaces are open to the public. In total, the amended project will provide 112 parking spaces, a net increase of 19 parking spaces over the previously-approved project.

7. This amendment eliminates the use of 28 off-site spaces, located on a lot directly across Fountain Avenue (APNs 006-174-003, 006-174-011, and 006-174-012).

8. Employee parking will be restricted to the Lighthouse Theatre Municipal Parking Lot.

Employees shall not be allowed to park in the hotel parking lot or on nearby streets.

9. The proposed amended project is adjacent to the Natural History Museum and the Public Library.

10. A Phase 1 Historic Report prepared by qualified historian Richard Brandi determined the existing structure to be ineligible for the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

11. On October 15, 2015, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution 15-056, which concluded the structure not to be historic.

12. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and circulated on August 31, 2017 through October 26, 2017 (SCH#2017031045); no significant unavoidable impacts were identified. As amended, the project remains consistent with the analysis and conclusions of the previously-certified final EIR.

13. On February 2, 2022, the City Council approved a Promissory Agreement for the water entitlement for the Pacific Grove Hotel, formerly known as the Hotel Durrell, to be located at 157 Grand Avenue.

PG CC 2/16/22
193 of 470

FINDINGS
Architectural Permit Findings

1. As amended, the proposed development will meet the development regulations set forth in the C-1-T zoning district including setbacks and height requirements;

2. As amended, the architecture and general appearance of the completed project is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed exterior fits the contexts with the size, scale and proportions of the existing commercial structures in the downtown;

3. As amended, the completed project 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 and the downtown fabric by replacing a surface level parking lot and singlestory building with a multi-story building; conforms to the General Plan Commercial Downtown and C-I-T zoning standards; and will improve the downtown’s walkability and vibrancy; and

4. On October 15, 2015, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution 15-056 which concluded the structure not to be historic, and therefore does not qualify for historic designation as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Use Permit Findings

1. As amended, the proposed use is allowed in the C-1-T zoning district with a use permit per Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) 23.31.040;

2. As amended, the proposed structure and parking are consistent with the Pacific Grove Zoning Code with regards to height, setbacks, parking, and coverage in the C-1-T zoning district. As previously approved, certain roof appurtenance features will exceed the maximum allowed height of 40 feet as amended and shown on the approved plans for “Pacific Grove Hotel” dated January 31, 2022 by RRM Design Group on file with CDD (i.e., plan sheets A.2 and A.3). The building coverage, total gross floor area, and exterior colors and materials would remain as previously approved;

3. As amended, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Commercial Downtown designation;

4. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use;

5. The use, as described and conditionally approved, will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City;

6. As amended, the location, size, and design of the proposed development are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity because the proposed structure complements the downtown character of the neighborhood improves the economic viability of the downtown; and
PG CC 2/16/22
194 of 470

7. In approving the permit amendment, the following conditions of approval are imposed and deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval will be in compliance with the findings cited above.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Permit Expiration. This permit amendment shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within two (2) years from and after the date of approval. Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

2. Conformance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to the approved plans for the “Pacific Grove Hotel” (AP/UP Amendment 21-0457) dated January 31, 2022, on file with the Community Development Department and to the Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently approved changes.

3. Construction Compliance. All construction shall occur in general compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff, and may require City Council approval.

4. Operational Permit. As amended, AP/UP 21-0457 shall become the operational permit and all conditions of approval shall be cleared under this amendment

5. Valet Parking. All parking provided for the hotel shall be free of charge valet.

6. Employee Parking. Employee parking will be restricted to the Lighthouse Theatre Municipal Parking Lot. Employees shall not be allowed to park in the hotel parking lot or on nearby streets.

7. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (a). During construction, the developer shall employ storm water best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-storm water discharges, and implement good housekeeping and construction waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by City Code Section 9.30.130(c), the City Phase II NPDES Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP), and the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

Plans for during-construction storm water management and BMPs, such as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), shall be submitted to the City and subject to review and approval of the Public Works/Community Development Director and Building Official prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit.

8. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (b). Construction activities subject to BMP requirements shall continuously employ measures to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality, contamination, or unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

9. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (c). Whenever construction activity is being done contrary to and in violation of PGMC Chapter 9.30, the Public Works/Community Development Director may order construction activity to stop by posting a written notice on the premises. All persons shall immediately stop such work unless or until the Public PG CC 2/16/22
195 of 470
Works Director authorizes removing the stop work order and allows construction activity to proceed.

10. Farmers Market. No construction/demolition activity shall occur on Mondays, between the hours of noon and 6:00 p.m., along Central Avenue and the northerly portion of Grand Avenue that may cause an adverse effect on Farmers Market set up, operation or breakdown.

11. Pedestrian safety. The Applicant shall pay for 25% of the cost for design and construction of the complete reconfiguration of the intersection of Central Avenue and Fountain Avenue to provide an All-Way Stop intersection as identified in the Mitigation Measures of the Environmental Impact Report. The intersection redesign shall be consistent with the guidelines described in the "Pedestrian Safety Report" prepared for the City by the Institute of Transportation Studies dated November 2008.

The Applicant shall pay 25% of the cost for design and construction of the reconfiguration of the intersection of Central Avenue and Grand Avenue to accommodate a new raised pavement crosswalk across the intersection on the south side of Central Avenue. The final project landscape plan for landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate the new raised pavement crosswalk.

All plans for construction of improvements within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. All improvements within the public rightof-way shall conform to ADA requirements, including curb ramps, bulb-outs and raised pavement crosswalks. All public works construction shall conform to City and State Standards and standard engineering practices. Prior to the City granting a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall deposit 25% of the estimated cost of improvements into a bond or escrow account.

12. Roof top. The following activities shall be allowed on the rooftop: small yoga classes in the morning and/or at sunset not exceeding 10 guests and 1 instructor; a small garden for the hotel restaurant chef to grow organic herbs and plants; and routine maintenance and repair. No other activities shall be allowed on the rooftop and no amplified sound(s) would be allowed at any time.

13. Archeology and Inadvertent Discovery. When human remains or other cultural artifacts are exposed, the Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 requires that no further excavation or disturbance occurs in the area and that the county coroner is called so that the coroner can verify that the remains are not subject to medical jurisprudence. Within 24 hours of notification, the coroner calls the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are known or thought to be Native American. The Native American Heritage Commission selects the Most Likely Descendant from a rotating list of MLDs. The MLD has 24 hours to respond. All work will halt with a 50-yard radius until an osteologist can examine the remains, and a treatment plan for any said remains has been provided according to the Most Likely Descendant.

14. Cultural and/or Archaeological Artifacts. If such artifacts are unexpectedly discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted until the item(s) can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, PG CC 2/16/22
196 of 470
appropriate mitigation will be formulated, with the approval of the lead agency, and implemented prior to recommencement of work.

15. Tribal Consultation. Both a tribal monitor and an archeologist will be on-site during ground disturbance. If any archaeological or paleontological resources are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 25 feet of the discovery and notify the Community Development Department (CDD) Director. The City and the project applicant shall consider mitigation in consultation with the tribal monitor and project archeologist.

The applicant shall contract separately with either the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN) or the Esselen Tribe of Monterey County (Esselen) for monitoring services during ground disturbing activities. An executed contract shall be provided to CDDPlanning prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition, grading, trenching, and any other ground disturbance.

16. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land and bind to all future owners and possessors of the subject property, unless amended. Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the Zoning Code.

17. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Works, Fire and Building Departments/Division are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taking place in the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.

18. Stormwater Treatment Measure: The storm water treatment measures shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity and City staff shall be allowed access to inspect all storm water treatment measures on an annual basis.

19. Building Plans: All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size plan sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Division.

20. Indemnification. The applicant agrees to an Indemnification Condition, which is attached to the Amendment application and incorporated herein by reference.

21. Agreement. The applicant and the hotel owner consent to the proposed conditions.

22. Bulbouts. The applicant shall pay for design and construction of five street/sidewalk bulbouts. Three shall be on Fountain Street and two shall be on Grand Avenue. Bulbout designs shall receive approval from the Public Works Department before installation, and be constructed prior to the City granting a Certificate of Occupancy.

23. Trip Reduction Measures. The Applicant, and any successor-in-interest as a continuing obligation during operation of the hotel, shall: (1) pay the full cost of monthly bus passes (31-day basic GoPasses) to enable employees to commute to work via Monterey-Salinas Transit; (2) provide, on site, ten (10) bicycles in good maintenance and repair for exclusive no-cost use by patrons; (3) install and maintain two (2) electric car supercharging stations in the parking garage; (4) designate two (2) employee carpool spaces in the hotel parking area; (5) pay (shared with other Pacific Grove lodging establishments, if possible) the full cost to extend into Pacific Grove then existing airport PG CC 2/16/22
197 of 470
shuttle routes that provide access from the Monterey Regional Airport to Cannery Row or Monterey hotels; (6) participate in Go831, the regional ride sharing program operated by TAMC.

DETERMINATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH FINAL EIR

1. As amended, the project is consistent with the previously-certified final EIR for the Hotel Durell Project (AP/UP 16-203, certified by the City Council on September 5, 2018 (Council Resolution No. 18-030). Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Council has reviewed the project, considered the final EIR, and finds that the project does not require a subsequent EIR based on the following:
a) No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts;
b) No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and c) No new information of substantial importance has been provided which was not known at the time of the previous EIR.

2. The following facts remain as certified by the City Council on September 5, 2018:
a) The final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; b) The final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project;
c) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis; and
d) The custodian for these documents shall be the City Clerk for the City of Pacific Grove found at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950.

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

1. Determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. Authorizes APPROVAL of this Amendment (Application No. 21-0457) to Architectural Permit and Use Permit AP/UP 16-203 to demolish the existing 17,500 square foot building and to construct a 102-room hotel with amenities of approximately 76,182 square feet with on-site parking.

3. Attachments are hereby approved as exhibits to this Resolution, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety, including the Indemnification Condition.

4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PG CC 2/16/22
198 of 470

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 16TH day of February, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PG CC 2/16/22
199 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
200 of 470
DN
12677 SF

PARKING
CENTRAL AVE.

FOUNTAIN AVE.

GRAND AVE.

Rentable Area Legend
ADMIN. OFFICE

BAGGAGE

CIRCULATION/PUBLIC

ENGINEERING

HOUSE KEEPING

INFRASTRUCTURE
LOBBY
LOCKER

PARKING

RESTAURANT

STAFF BREAK

SUPPORT/BOH
HOUSE

KEEPING
RR BAR

KITCHEN
1,045 SF

RESTAURANT

STORAGE
ELEV.

EQUIP

ELEV LOBBY/

PRE FUNCTION

MECH OFFICE
ELECT. BAGGAGE
LOBBY
STAIR
124 SF

MEETING

STORAGE
DN
266 SF
TRASH
OFFICE
LOCKER ENG.

STAFF
BREAK
708 SF

EVENT /

BANQUET
SPACE
342 SF
DINING
PATIO
DINING
1,190 SF
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:23:45 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

GROUND FLOOR PLAN
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
Name Gross Area
ADMIN. OFFICE 880 SF
BAGGAGE 112 SF
ENGINEERING 278 SF
GYM 798 SF
HOSPITALITY 694 SF
HOUSE KEEPING 1426 SF
INFRASTRUCTURE 100 SF
LOBBY 914 SF
LOCKER 456 SF
PARKING 12677 SF
RESTAURANT 3615 SF
SPA 849 SF
STAFF BREAK 436 SF
PARKING REQUIRED:
102 GUESTROOMS (1/4) 25.5
708 SF MEETING (1/150) 4.7
1,045 SF KITCHEN (1/300) 3.5
1,190 SF DINING (INT) (1/50) 23.8
342 SF DINING (EXT) (1/50) 6.8
HOLMAN SPACES 14
TOTAL 103
PARKING PROVIDED:

MECH. PARKING 84
SURFACE PARKING: 14
HOLMAN SPACES: 14
TOTAL 112
PG CC 2/16/22
201 of 470
Rentable Area Legend
ADMIN. OFFICE

BALCONY

CIRCULATION/PUBLIC
GYM

HOSPITALITY

HOUSE KEEPING

ROOM TYPE A

ROOM TYPE B

ROOM TYPE C
SPA

SUPPORT/BOH
849 SF
SPA
OFFICE
798 SF
GYM
HOUSE

KEEPING
581 SF

PRIVATE

BALCONY

HOSPITALITY

ROOM COUNT

SECOND FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 23
SUITE 1
TOTAL 24

THIRD FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 35
SUITES 5
TOTAL 40

FOURTH FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 34
SUITES 4
TOTAL 38
TOTALS
STANDARD ROOMS 92
SUITES 9
GRAND TOTAL 102
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:23:47 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

SECOND FLOOR
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"
02-SECOND FLOOR - UPDATE
PG CC 2/16/22
202 of 470
Rentable Area Legend

BALCONY

CIRCULATION/PUBLIC

HOUSE KEEPING

ROOM TYPE A

ROOM TYPE B

ROOM TYPE C

ROOM TYPE E
SUITES

SUPPORT/BOH
HOUSE

KEEPING

ROOM COUNT

SECOND FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 23
SUITE 1
TOTAL 24

THIRD FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 35
SUITES 5
TOTAL 40

THIRD FLOOR
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"
03-THIRD FLOOR
PG CC 2/16/22
203 of 470
Rentable Area Legend

BALCONY

CIRCULATION/PUBLIC

HOUSE KEEPING

ROOM TYPE A

ROOM TYPE C

ROOM TYPE D

ROOM TYPE E
SUITES

SUPPORT/BOH
HOUSE

KEEPING

ROOM COUNT

SECOND FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 23
SUITE 1
TOTAL 24

THIRD FLOOR
STANDARD ROOMS 35
SUITES 5
TOTAL 40

FOURTH FLOOR
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
PG CC 2/16/22
204 of 470
BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT
BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT
01-GROUND FLOOR
81' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
04-T.O.P
121' - 0 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
01-GROUND FLOOR
81' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
04-T.O.P
121' - 0 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:03:43 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"

FOUNTAIN ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0"

CENTRAL ELEVATION
PG CC 2/16/22
205 of 470
BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT BODY_8.PRT BODY_0.PRT BODY_9.PRT 02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
04-T.O.P
121' - 0 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
01-GROUND FLOOR
81' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:03:53 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"

HOLMAN ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0"

GRAND ELEVATION
PG CC 2/16/22
206 of 470
01-GROUND FLOOR
81' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
01-COURTYARD
85' - 10"

PARKING FF
79' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"
01-COURTYARD
85' - 10"
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:03:58 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"

COURTYARD ELEVATION
1/16" = 1'-0"

COURTYARD ELEVATION
PG CC 2/16/22
207 of 470
01-GROUND FLOOR
81' - 11"
02-SECOND FLOOR
91' - 5"
04-FOURTH FLOOR
111' - 11 1/2"
03-THIRD FLOOR
101' - 8 1/4"

PARKING FF
79' - 11"
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 2/7/2022 9:04:01 AM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL

EXTERIOR BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FEBRUARY 7, 2022
1/16" = 1'-0"

COURTYARD ELEVATION
PG CC 2/16/22
208 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
209 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
210 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
211 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
212 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
213 of 470
C:\Users\klmurray\Documents\0123-02-CO15 Pacific Grove Hotel_Central_klmurrayL5TPA.rvt 1/31/2022 3:01:11 PM
SD- 0123-02-CO19 - PACIFIC GROVE HOTEL
PG CC 2/16/22
214 of 470
RESOLUTION NO. 18-030
ARCHITECTURAL PERMIT AND USE PERMIT AP AND UP #16-203 TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 17,500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND BUILD A 116 GUEST ROOM, 76,182 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL PURSUANT TO PGMC §23.31.020
FACTS

1. The subject site is located at 157 Grand Avenue, Pacific Grove, 93950 APN 006~ 173- 001.

2. The subject site has a designation of Light Commercial/ Hotel/Condominium District on the adopted City of Pacific Grove General Plan Land Use Map.

3. The project site is located in the C-1-T zoning district. The C-1-T zoning district was created through an approval of Ordinance 1951 by a·public vote of Pacific Grove citizens on June 7, 1994.

4. The property is located in the Downtown Pacific Grove Business District per Chapter

6.50 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC), the 1961 Downtown Parking District and the Area of Special Biological Significance.

5. The subject site is approximately 0.77 acres (33,875 square feet).

6. The proposed project provides 79 valet parking spaces; 51 spaces on-site, and 28 off-site spaces, located on a lot directly across Fountain Avenue, (APN 006-174-011). The proposed project is also providing 14 spaces at the back of the hotel to meet a condition of the Holman Building approval. Those spaces are open to the public.

7. The proposed project is adjacent to the Natural History Museum and the Public Library.

8. A Phase 1 Historic Report prepared by qualified historian Richard Brandi determined the existing structure to be ineligible for the City's Historic Resources Inventory.

9. On October 15, 2015, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution 15-056, which concluded the structure not to be historic.

10. An Environmental Impact Report (BIR) was prepared for this project and circulated on August 31, 2017 through October 26, 2017; no significant unavoidable impacts were identified.

11. The proposal requires additional potable water and the project was added to the City's water waitlist.
1 PG CC 2/16/22
215 of 470

FINDINGS
Architectural Permit Findings

1. The proposed development will meet the development regulations set forth in the C-1-T zoning district including setbacks and height requirements;

2. The architecture and general appearance of the completed project is compatible with the neighborhood because the proposed exterior fits within the context and style of the existing commercial and civic structures in the immediate vicinity and within the downtown;

3. The completed project 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 and the downtown fabric by replacing a surface level parking lot and single-story building with a multi-story building; it conforms to the General Plan Commercial Downtown and C-I-T zoning standards; and it will improve the downtown's walkability and vibrancy; and

Use Permit Findings

1. The proposed use is allowed in the C-1-T zoning district with a use permit per PGMC §

23.31.040;

2. The proposed structure and parking is consistent with the City Zoning Code with regards to height, floor area ratio, setbacks, parking, and site coverage in the C-1-T zoning district;

3. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan Commercial Downtown designation;

5. The use, as described and conditionally approved, will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City;

6. The location, size, and design of the proposed development are compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity because the proposed structure complements the civic character of the neighborhood and improves the economic viability of the downtown; and

7. In approving the permit, the following conditions of approval are imposed and deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the approval will be in compliance with the findings cited above.

PG CC 2/16/22
216 of 470

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Permit Expiration. This permit shall expire and be null and void if a building permit has not been applied for within one (1) year from and after the date of approval.

Application for extension of this approval must be made prior to the expiration date.

2. ConforlJlance to Plans. Development of the site shall conform to approved plans for "Hotel Durell" dated August 3, 2018 by RRM Design Group on file with CEDD and to the City's Building Code, with the exception of any subsequently-approved changes.

3. Construction Compliance. AH construction must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application, subject to any special conditions of approval herein. Any deviation from approvals must be reviewed and approved by staff and may require City Council approval.

4. Deed Restriction. Prior to Building Permit submittal, a deed restriction shall be recorded on the lot directly adjacent to the subject site located on Fountain Ave and Ricketts Row (APN 006-174-011; 006-174-012; 006-174-003), also known as the Fountain Street Parking Lot, requiring the lot's exclusive use for off-site parking for the use of Hotel Durell for the duration of AP/UP 16-203.

S. Valet Parking: All parking provided for the hotel shall be free of charge valet. This condition was· added after the Planning Commission hearing with the concurrence of the Owner.

6. Employee Parking. Annually, the applicant shall secure 12 passes for the City's Municipal parking lot and shall endeavor to use all means at its disposal to ensure hotel employees park in those spaces. The employees may park in the hotel's Fountain Street Lot during nighttime hours and during periods of low hotel patronage. The parking passes are valid for use at any of the City's Municipal Parking Lots.

7. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (a): During construction, the developer shall employ storm water best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control, prevention of non-storm water discharges, and implement good housekeeping and construction waste management practices to protect the storm drainage system and water quality as required by City Code Section 9.30.130(c), the City Phase II NPDES Permit, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction General Permit (CGP), and the Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program (MRSWMP).

8. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (b ). Construction activities subject to BMP requirements shall continuously employ measures to control waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter, and sanitary waste at the construction site that may cause adverse impacts to water quality, contamination, or unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

9. During-Construction Pollution Prevention (c). Whenever construction activity is being done contrary to and in violation of PGMC Chapter 9.30, the Public Works/Community Development Director may order construction activity stop by posting a written notice on the premises. All persons shall immediately stop such work unless or until the Public Works Director authorizes removing the stop work order and allows construction activity to proceed.

10. Farmers Market. No construction/demolition activity shall occur on Mondays between the hours of noon and 6:00 p.m; along Central Avenue and the northerly portion of Grand Avenue that may cause an adverse effect on Farmers Market set up, operation or breakdown.

11. Pedestrian safety. The Applicant shall pay for 25% of the cost for design and construction of the complete reconfiguration of the intersection of Central A venue and Fountain Avenue to provide an All-Way Stop intersection as identified in the Mitigation Measures of the Environmental Impact Report. The intersection redesign shall be consistent with the guidelines described in the "Pedestrian Safety Report" Prepared for the City by the Institute of Transportation Studies dated November dated November 2008.

The Applicant shall pay 25% of the cost for design and construction of the reconfiguration of the intersection of Central Ave, and Grand Ave. to accommodate a new raised pavement crosswalk across the intersection on the south side of Central Ave.

The final project landscape plan for landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be designed to incorporate the new raised pavement crosswalk.

All plans for construction of improvements within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the City granting a Certificate of Occupancy. All improvements within the public right-of-way shall conform to ADA requirements, including curb ramps, bulb-outs and raised pavement crosswalks. All public works construction shall conform to City and State Standards and standard engineering practices.

12. Roof top. No activities shall be allowed on the rooftop, other than routine maintenance and repair.

PG CC 2/16/22
218 of 470

13. Archeology. If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 50 meters of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated, with the concurrence of City staff, and implemented.

14. Tribal Consultation. Both a Tribal Monitor and an Archeologist will be on-site during ground disturbance. If any archaeological or paleontological resources are found, the project applicant and/or its contractor shall cease all work within 25 feet of the discovery and notify the Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD) Director.

The City and the project applicant shall consider mitigation in consultation with the Ohlqne/Costanoan-Esselen Nation and project archeologist.

15. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions shall run with the land, and it is the intention of the CEDD Director and the Applicant to bind all future.owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions, unless amended.

Amendments to this permit may be achieved only if an application is made and approved, pursuant to the City's Zoning Code.

16. Public Works, Fire and Building. Review and approval by the Public Wo~ks; Fire and Building Departments are required prior to issuance of a building permit. Work taldng place in the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit prior to issuance of the building permit.

17. Stormwater Treatment Measure. The storm water treatment measures shall be maintained by the property owner in perpetuity and City staff shall be allowed access to inspect all storm. water treatment measures on an annual basis.

18. Building Plans. All conditions of approval for the Planning permit(s) shall be printed on a full-size sheet and included with the construction plan set submitted to the Building Department.

19. Indemnification. The applicant agrees to an Indemnification Condition, which is attached to this Resolution and incorporated by reference.

20. Agreement. The applicant and the hotel owner consent to the proposed conditions.

21. Bulbouts. The Applicant shall pay for design and construction of five street/sidewalk bulbouts. Three shall be on Fountain Street and two shall be on Grand Avenue. Bulbout designs shall receive approval from the Public Works Department before installation.

22. Trip Reduction Measures. The Applicant, and any successor-in-interest as a continumg obligation during operation of the hotel, shall: (1) pay the full cost of monthly bus passes (31-day basic GoPasses) to enable employees to commute to work via Monterey-Salinas 5 PG CC 2/16/22
219 of 470
Transit; (2) provide, on site, ten (10) bicycles in good maintenance and repair for exclusive no-cost use by patrons; (3) install and maintain two (2) electric car supercharging stations in the parking garage; (4) designate two (2) employee carpool spaces in - the Fountain Street Parking Lot; (5) pay (shared with other Pacific Grove lodging establishments, if possible) the full cost to extend· into Pacific Grove then existing airport shuttle routes that provide access from the Monterey Regional Airport to Cannery Row or Monterey hotels; (6) participate in Go831, the regional ride sharing program operated by TAMC.

FINAL EIR FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION

1. The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

2. The final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and

3. The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.

4. The custodian for these documents shall be the City Clerk for the City of Pacific Grove found at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950

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

1. Determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.

2. Authorizes APPROVAL of Architectural Permit and Use Permit AP/UP 16-203 to demolish the existing 17,500 square foot building and to construct a 116 room hotel of approximately 76,182 square feet with on and off-site parking.

3. Attachments are hereby approved as exhibits to this Resolution, which by this reference are incorporated as set forth in its entirety, including the Indemnification Condition, and the legal instrument referred to as the Reaffirmation Agreement, which provides the City with evidentiary proof that the Fountain Street Lot is part of this hotel proposal.

4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 5
th day of September 2018, by the following votes:

A YES: Mayor Kampe, Councilmembers Cuneo, Fischer, Garfield, Huitt, and Peake.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: None.

ABSTAIN: Councilmember Smith.

PG CC 2/16/22
220 of 470
DA . LAREDO, City Attorney
APPROVED:

B ~ J<.tXAM~A.OBILL KAMPE, Ma;yorJ
7 PG CC 2/16/22
221 of 470

INDEMNIFICATION CONDITION
In consideration for City review and approval of application in this matter, the Owner/ Applicant shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees (collectively "Indemnitees"), using counsel approved in writing by the City, from and against, any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes of action, proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements which may accrue against Indemnitees by reason of the City's approval of the request and application in this matter. Indemnification shall include, but shall not be limited to any action, or proceeding brought to attack, set aside, void, annul, limit, or inhibit the approval of the application referenced above, and shall expressly include causes of action under the Califo~ Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The obligation to indemnify shall include, but not be limited to, all costs relating to preparing administrative records, investigations, responses to discovery, retention of experts, and other costs, including attorney's fees or obligations related to this matter, including actions brought by the Owner/Applicant and also extend to any expense incurred in establishing the City's right to indemnification. City expenses shall be paid by Owner/Applicant upon City request notwithstanding final disposition of the matter has not yet occurred. If the City is later determined to not be entitled to indemnification, the City shall repay amounts so advanced.

This indemnification condition is the Owner/Applicant's inducement to the City to process and approve the application, which approval would otherwise be withheld by City due to its concern for liability or expense that may result from performance of the City's duties. Should any dispute arise regarding interpretation of this condition, the prevailing party shall recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees and related expenses.

Recovery of expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.

This indemnification condition shall not require the Owner/ Applicant to indemnify the City or other Indemnities: (a) to the extent that an obligation is actually paid by an insurer pursuant to an insurance policy; (b) in connection with any remuneration paid to the City, if it shall be finally adjudged that such remuneration was in violation of law; or (c) on account of the City's misconduct if such misconduct shall be finally adjudged to have been knowingly fraudulent, deliberately dishonest or willful.

Any permit or other approval given by the City to the Owner/ Applicant Guarantor shall be valid only so long as this indemnification cQndition is given full force and effect. If this indemnification condition is revoked, the permit or other approval of the City shall then become null and void.

PG CC 2/16/22
222 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
223 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
224 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
225 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
226 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
227 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
228 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
229 of 470
Link to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Hotel Durell Project (SCH#2017031045) - Pacific Grove, CA (cityofpacificgrove.org) PG CC 2/16/22
230 of 470
Agenda No. 11 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem and Amy Tomlinson, Councilmember MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: City Council Salary and Health Benefits This item was pulled from the 9/15 agenda and continued to a future meeting once all information is received.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance to (1) amend the salary classification schedule to modify salary ranges for City Council Member and Mayor and (2) direct a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION
At the October 6, 2021 City Council meeting, a discussion was convened regarding City Council Salary and Health Benefits. From that discussion, a City Council Subcommittee (the Subcommittee), comprised of Council Members McAdams and Tomlinson, was appointed to further research City Council salary and total compensation plans and return with proposals for City Council review by January 2022. Since the time of the October 6, 2021 City Council meeting, the Subcommittee has been meeting with City staff in an effort to hone its recommendations.

The result of the Subcommittee's efforts is a proposed ordinance that seeks to increase the City Council salary from $420/month to $624/month, and the Mayor salary from $700/month to $1337/month (48.6% and 91% increases, respectively). In addition, the proposed ordinance seeks to provide the City Council with the option to participate in the City's health benefit program at a City monthly contribution level tied to those received by City Department Heads (the City currently provides up to $1700.00/month plus $149.00 PEMHCA for employee + 2 dependents or more for Department Head level).

Any change to the salary and health benefits of the City Council may not take effect until following the next General Election when at least one (1) of the sitting City Council Members is up for election (November 2022). Should the City Council decide to adopt the proposed ordinance, salary increases, and health benefits may take effect following the November 2022 General Election, and may cost the City as much as an additional $13,182 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 22-23, or less, depending on the City Council's optional participation level.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

PG CC 2/16/22
231 of 470

1. Take no action.

2. Propose alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Any change to the salary and health benefits of the City Council may not take effect until following the next General Election when at least one (1) of the sitting City Council Members is up for election (November 2022). Salary increases and health benefits that may take place after the November 2022 General Election may cost the City up to an additional $13,182 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 22-23, depending on the optional City Council Member participation level. The annual cost for the change in salary and benefits is estimated to be up to $22,849, depending on the participation level.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
City Council Salary and Health Benefit Ordinance
PG CC 2/16/22
232 of 470
ORDINANCE NO. 22 -

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PACIFIC GROVE ADJUSTING COMPENSATION FOR THE

MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FINDINGS

1. The City of Pacific Grove desires to provide salary and compensation to the Mayor and Members of the City Council in accordance with California law, the City Charter and Council Policy. State law provides establishment of city council salaries must be by ordinance, not resolution.

2. Article 11 of the City Charter provides: “The Mayor may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove.”

3. Article 12 of the City Charter provides: “The Councilmembers may receive compensation as provided by ordinance, but in no case shall the compensation exceed that amount which is permitted by the State Law for General Law cities of comparable size to Pacific Grove.”

4. The City adopted Policy No. 000-11, a Policy Governing Council Benefits, to address Council Member compensation and benefits. This Policy provides “Council has established compensation at $700.00/month for the Mayor and at $420.00/month for Council Members. (Ordinance No. 98-24).”

5. City Policy No. 000-11 further provides “In addition to salary, elected officials are eligible to participate in the State of California Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and, if a member of PERS, may participate in the City’s medical insurance program, which is provided through the retirement systems.”

6. California Government Code section 36516 allows the City Council to periodically adjust compensation for its Mayor and Members of Council, by ordinance, in an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) per year since the last salary adjustment. The Attorney General has ruled this maximum increase must be applied once, without compounding.
1 PG CC 2/16/22
233 of 470

7. State law does not allow for automatic increases in Council Member compensation. Any increase cannot not take effect for Council Members until after one or more Council Members begins a new term of office.

8. Consistent with the City Charter, State law and Council policy, the City now desires to adjust compensation for the Mayor and for Members of the Council.

9. In enacting this Ordinance the City followed guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.

ORDINANCE

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

SECTION 1. Findings.

The Findings of the City Council set forth above are incorporated into this Ordinance as an integral part as if set forth in full.

SECTION 2. Mayor and Council Member Compensation & Benefits.

A. Compensation for the Mayor shall be set at $1337 per month.

B. Compensation for each Council Member shall be set at $624 per month.

C. The Mayor and Members of Council shall be entitled to enroll in City health and welfare plans by complying with annual open enrollment procedures. Benefits shall be set at levels allowed for City Department Heads.

D. Amounts paid by the City for retirement, health and welfare, and federal social security benefits shall not be included for purposes of determining salary under this section, provided the same benefits are available and paid by the city for its employees. Determination of permissible health and welfare benefits, and provisions for reimbursement, may be set or modified by resolution. 2 PG CC 2/16/22
234 of 470
E. Amounts paid by the City to reimburse the Mayor or any Council Member for actual and necessary expenses shall not be included for purposes of determining salary pursuant to this section. Determination of permissible expenses and provisions for reimbursement may be set or modified by resolution.

F. The Mayor or any Council Member may waive any or all compensation permitted by this section.

SECTION 3. Implementation
Each City Policy shall be amended to conform to the provisions of this Ordinance.

The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other acts necessary City to implement this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any specific portion thereof.

SECTION 5. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from its adoption; however, the any change to compensation or benefits provided for the Mayor or for any Council Member authorized in Section 2 shall not take effect until January 1, 2023 which date is subsequent to terms commencing for Members of the City Council elected in the General Election to be held in November 2022.

SECTION 6. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause a summary of it, as approved by the City Attorney, to be published once within fifteen (15) days of adoption in a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Pacific Grove, and shall post a certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this _____ day of February __, 2022, by the following vote:
3 PG CC 2/16/22
235 of 470
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________

BILL PEAKE
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________

SANDRA KANDELL
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO
City Attorney
C:\Windows\TEMP\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@D84E5474\@[email protected] 4 PG CC 2/16/22
236 of 470
Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2021 This item was continued from the January 19, 2021 meeting.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Annual Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, which includes the Auditor's Opinion on the City's financial statements, from the City's independent auditor, Chavan & Associates, LLP
Receive the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund (TAMC Measure X) Report, which includes the Auditor's Report by the City's independent auditor, Chavan & Associates, LLP
Receive a status on improvements based on the auditor's recommendations that are being implemented, and provide any desired direction.

DISCUSSION
The City contracted with Chavan & Associates, LLP, a firm of licensed certified public accountants, to audit the City of Pacific Grove’s financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. The goal of the independent audit is to provide reasonable assurance that the basic financial statements are free from material misstatement. The Independent Auditor's Report which is included on page 20 of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), indicates that the financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City. This “unmodified” opinion is the optimal opinion to receive from an external auditor. Fiscal Year 20/21, represents the twelfth consecutive year the City has earned this opinion.

In Fiscal Year 20/21, the name of the City's financial report was changed from Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to the (ACFR) to reflect Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 98. This Statement is in response to an increasing awareness that the report's former acronym, when pronounced aloud, sounds the same as a derogatory term that was historically used in South Africa. The Fiscal Year 20/21 ACFR can be accessed through this link.

The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the City’s ACFR for PG CC 2/16/22
237 of 470
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. This represents the fourth year that the City has received this prestigious award. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. Staff believes that the Fiscal Year 20/21 ACFR continues to meet the program requirements and the City will be submitting the attached ACFR to GFOA for consideration of another certificate.

The auditors deemed that it was unnecessary to perform a Single Audit in Fiscal Year 20/21. A Single Audit is required when the City receives $750,000 or more in federal grant funding. Due to the receipt of ARPA funds, the City will be required to complete a Single Audit in Fiscal Year 21/22.

A general overview of the audit will be provided by Sheldon Chavan, a partner of the audit firm and lead for the City. Specific topics of the presentation will include:

Overview of City-wide financial performance
Governmental Funds, including the General Fund
Business-Type or Enterprise Funds
Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefit (OPEB) obligations Addition information can be found in the ACFR, while select highlights pertaining to the General Fund and Capital Improvement Fund are listed below.

Fund Balance
The General Fund’s year-end balance increased from $9.8 million to $10 million.

The $193,914 increase primarily reflects the better than anticipated revenues, net of cost-savings initiatives that were implemented due to COVID-19. The unassigned fund balance was $9.9 million or 44% of total General Fund expenditures, prior to transfers.

The City's financial statements consolidate several minor funds with the General Fund for financial statement reporting purposes. This differs from the budgetary presentation. The budgetary General Fund Balance is $9.4 million, with approximately $567,000 attributed to minor sub-funds. This amount aligns with the General Fund beginning fund balance that was referenced on the Fiscal Year 21/22 budget amendment ordinances. The separate unassigned General Fund balance is approximately 41.9% of the General Fund expenditures, prior to transfers.

The unassigned General Fund balance, from both a budgetary and financial statement perspective is above the City’s policy level, which targets a minimum unassigned fund balance at 35% of operating expenditures and debt service.

The Capital Improvement Fund’s year-end balance was $220,023. This amount represents funds that were earmarked for capital projects that were carried forward into the next fiscal year.

Revenues and Expenditures
General Fund revenues for this fiscal year were $23.4 million. This represents an increase in revenues of $11,421 million when compared to the prior year. This was largely attributed to reductions in transient occupancy taxes, net of increased performance in various other tax categories, as well as Charges for Services.

General Fund expenses for this fiscal year were $22.5 million, prior to transfers. This was a decrease of $397,315 when compared to the prior year expenditures. This difference is primarily due to cost-containment efforts to assist with revenue shortfalls; and the carry-forward of executed contracts and purchase orders.

The net general fund transfers for Fiscal Year 20/21 was $628,881. This includes transfers-out of approximately $500,000 to support capital improvements, $210,000 for emergency PG CC 2/16/22
238 of 470
communication services, and $50,000 to support the City's Small Business Grant Program. This was offset by transfers from the Coronavirus Relief or CARES Act Funds to the General Fund in the amount of $131,119 to cover pandemic-related expenditures.

The City's independent auditor provides a Management Letter which includes updates on prior year audit recommendations. These recommendations included conducting a physical inventory of capital assets and performing TOT audits. Staff initiated the process of conducting a physical inventory of capital assets in Fiscal Year 19/20; however due to COVID-19 and limited resources, additional time is needed. The City also entered into an agreement with HdL Companies to perform transient occupancy tax audits. The audit program was initiated in this fiscal year. Nine lodging establishments were selected for the first audit cycle.

A copy of the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund (TAMC - Measure X), which includes the Independent Auditors Report is attached for reference. The independent auditor's statement that confirms the City is compliant with the Measure X Maintenance of Effort requirements is included on Page 6 of the TAMC Audit Report.

OPTIONS
Receive Report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue needs.

Attachments
TAMC Audit Report
Powerpoint Presentation
PG CC 2/16/22
239 of 470

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND

INVESTMENT PLAN ACCOUNTFUND

WITH INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS’ REPORT
JUNE 30, 2021
* * *
PG CC 2/16/22
240 of 470
Table of Contents
Page No
FINANCIAL SECTION:

Independent Auditors’ Report ........................................................................................... 1 - 2 Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet .............................................................................................................. 3 Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ......................... 4 Notes to the Financial Statements ............................................................................... 5 - 6 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual .......................................................... 8 OTHER INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORTS:

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statement Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ............................... 10 - 11 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with TAMC Ordinance No. 2016-01 and the Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement ................... 12 - 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Schedule of Findings and Recommendations ................................................................... 15 Status of Prior Year Findings and Recommendations ...................................................... 16 PG CC 2/16/22
241 of 470

FINANCIAL SECTION
PG CC 2/16/22
242 of 470
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT
City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove, California
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the City of Pacific Grove Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund, as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes 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.

Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design 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. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the City’s Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund, as of June 30, 2021, and the changes in financial position thereof for the fiscal year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

PG CC 2/16/22
243 of 470
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City of Pacific Grove, as of June 30, 2021, the changes in its financial position, or, where applicable, its cash flows for the fiscal year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.

Other Matters
Other Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund financial statements that collectively comprise the City of Pacific Grove Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund financial statements. The accompanying supplemental information – Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual on page 8 is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The supplemental schedule is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the City’s Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the supplemental schedule – Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 14, 2021, on our consideration of the City of Pacific Grove Traffic Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with the requirements described in the TAMC’s Ordinance No. 2016-01 and in the Agreement between TAMC and the City and other matters for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. The purpose of that report is solely to report our opinion on compliance and to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Pacific Grove Traffic Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City of Pacific Grove Traffic Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund’s compliance.

December 14, 2021
Morgan Hill, California
PG CC 2/16/22
244 of 470
ASSETS
Cash and investments $ 805,738
Taxes receivable 191,188
Total assets $ 996,926

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:

Accounts payable $ 1,188
Fund Balance:

Restricted 995,738
Total Liabilities and Fund balance $ 996,926
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements PG CC 2/16/22
245 of 470

REVENUES
Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account revenue $ 657,027 Investment earnings (114)
Total Revenues 656,913

EXPENDITURES
Capital outlay 548,796
Total Expenditures 548,796
Net Change in Fund Balance 108,117
Fund Balance Beginning 887,621
Fund Balance Ending $ 995,738
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements PG CC 2/16/22
246 of 470
NOTE 1 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Basis of Accounting
The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. The Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund of the City of Pacific Grove (the City) is a governmental fund type. Governmental funds are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus. The application of this measurement focus provides that, in general, only current assets and current liabilities are present on the balance sheet. Operating statements of these funds present revenues and expenditures.

The modified accrual basis of accounting is used for the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when they become susceptible to accrual (i.e., both measurable and available). Measurable means that the amount of the transaction can be determined. Available means the funds are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, the City considers revenues to be available if they are collected within 60 days of the end of the current fiscal period.

Expenditures of governmental funds are generally recognized when the related fund liability is incurred.

Reporting Entity
The Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund from the Transportation Agency for Monterey County was approved on November 8, 2016. The revenue from the sales tax measure will be used to fund transportation safety and mobility projects in Monterey County. Expenditures are restricted to road improvements, pothole repairs, street and road maintenance, traffic deduction and regional safety, mobility and walkability.

The Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Fund financial statements and related accounting policies of the City conform with generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governments in the United States of America. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The financial statements present only the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund and do not purport to, and do not present, the City’s financial position and changes in financial position.

The City of Pacific Grove’s basic financial statements are available from the Finance Department at City’s address and website.

NOTE 2 – CASH DEPOSITS
The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments for all funds (including the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund) under its direct daily control. Interest earned on pooled cash and investments is allocated periodically to the various funds based on average cash balances. Detailed disclosure regarding the City’s investments of cash is included in the notes to City’s basic financial statements.

PG CC 2/16/22
247 of 470
NOTE 3 – MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
The Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, as amended, requires that the City must expend each fiscal year from its general fund for street and highway purposes an amount not less than the annual average of its expenditures from its general fund during the 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 fiscal years, but not less than what was expended in 2016-17 (when Measure X passed), as reported to the Controller pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 2151 (“Maintenance of Effort”). This baseline amount will be indexed annually to the Engineering News Record construction index.

The following eligible expenditures were made:

Total expenditures from the general fund for street and highway purposes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 was $1,388,634. The City was in compliance with the Maintenance of Effort requirement of the Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement between the City of Pacific Grove and the Transportation Agency for Monterey County.

Fiscal year ended June 30:
2010 $326,756
2011 $396,862
2012 $720,604
Total $1,444,222
Three-year average $481,407
Fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 $912,274
Maintenance of effort baseline $912,274
Engineering News Record construction index FY 2019/20 1.37% Engineering News Record construction index FY 2020/21 1.27% Index-adjusted maintenance of effort requirement $936,458 Current year eligible expenditures $1,388,634
Compliant (Yes or No) Yes
PG CC 2/16/22
248 of 470

SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION
PG CC 2/16/22
249 of 470
Variance with
Final Budget
Actual Positive
Original Final Amounts (Negative)

REVENUES
Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Revenue $ 552,500 $ 568,593 $ 657,027 $ 88,434 Interest 6,000 4,724 (114) (4,838)
Total Revenues 558,500 573,317 656,913 83,596

EXPENDITURES
Capital outlay 676,530 1,457,282 548,796 908,486
Total Expenditures 676,530 1,457,282 548,796 908,486
Net Change in Fund Balance (118,030) (883,965) 108,117 992,082 Fund Balance Beginning 887,621 887,621 887,621 -
Fund Balance Ending $ 769,591 $ 3,656 $ 995,738 $ 992,082 Budgeted Amounts
The City employs budget control by object codes and by individual appropriation accounts. Budgets are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as prescribed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. The budgets are revised during the year by the City Council to provide for revised priorities. Expenditures cannot legally exceed appropriations by major object code. The originally adopted and final revised budgets for the Measure X Special Revenue Fund are presented as Required Supplementary Information. The basis of budgeting is the same as GAAP.

PG CC 2/16/22
250 of 470

OTHER INDEPENDENT

AUDITORS REPORTS
PG CC 2/16/22
251 of 470
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER

MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT PERFORMED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove, California
We have audited, 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, the financial statements of the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund (Measure X Fund) of City of Pacific Grove (the “City”) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise City of Pacific Grove’s Measure X Fund financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 14, 2021.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City of Pacific Grove’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances 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 City of Pacific Grove’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City of Pacific Grove’s internal control.

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 misstatement 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 statement will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

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

Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Pacific Grove’s Measure X Fund financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

PG CC 2/16/22
252 of 470
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

December 14, 2021
Morgan Hill, California
PG CC 2/16/22
253 of 470
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH
TAMC ORDINANCE NO. 2016-01 AND THE MEASURE X

MASTER PROGRAMS FUNDING AGREEMENT
City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Pacific Grove, California
We have audited the City of Pacific Grove’s (the “City”) Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund’s (the City’s Measure X Fund) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Transportation Agency’s for Monterey County’s (TAMC) Ordinance No. 2016-01 and the Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement (the Agreement) between TAMC and the City, applicable for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to the Transportation Safety and Investment Plan Account Fund.

Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit in accordance with the compliance requirements described in the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s (TAMC) Ordinance No. 2016-01 and in the Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement (the Agreement) between TAMC and the City. The Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement requires that the independent auditor shall perform at least the following tasks: (1) determine whether the recipient expended all Measure X funds received in compliance with Measure X, the Measure X Investment Plan, and the Policies & Project Descriptions, as they may be adopted or amended by TAMC from time to time, and the Agreement, (2) determine whether the Measure X revenues received and expended were accounted for and tracked in its own separate budget and fund titled “Transportation Safety & Investment Plan Account” and were not be comingled with any other funds and that the accounting system provides adequate internal controls and audit trails to facilitate an annual compliance audit for each fund type and the respective usage and application of said funds, and (3) determine whether the City met the Maintenance of Effort requirements imposed by Measure X and State law. We conducted our audit of compliance 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. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on the state laws and regulations applicable to the City occurred.

An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.

Opinion on Compliance with the TAMC Ordinance No. 2016-01 In our opinion, the funds allocated to and received by the City’s Measure X Fund, complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that are applicable in accordance to the compliance requirements described in the Transportation Agency for Monterey County’s (TAMC) Ordinance No. 2016-01 and in the Measure X Master Programs Funding Agreement between TAMC and the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

PG CC 2/16/22
254 of 470
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to report our opinion on compliance with the TAMC Ordinance No. 2016-01 and to describe the scope of our testing over compliance and the results of that testing. This report is intended solely for the information and use of City Council, management of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County and for filing with the appropriate regulatory agencies and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

December 14, 2021
Morgan Hill, California
PG CC 2/16/22
255 of 470

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
PG CC 2/16/22
256 of 470
None reported.

PG CC 2/16/22
257 of 470
None reported.

PG CC 2/16/22
258 of 470
City of Pacific Grove
JUNE 30, 2021 AUDIT RESULTS
PG CC 2/16/22
259 of 470
Audit Standards
◦ AICPA’s Statements on
Auditing Standards
◦ GAO/GAGAS
◦ We conducted our audit in
accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in
the United States of America, the
standards applicable to financial
audits contained in Government
Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United
States
PG CC 2/16/22
260 of 470
Audit Objective/Responsibilities
Objective
◦ To express an opinion on the
financial statements based on our
audit.

Responsibilities
◦ Plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance
about whether the financial
statements are free from material
misstatement.

PG CC 2/16/22
261 of 470
Audit Objective/Responsibilities
Responsibilities Contiued
◦ An audit involves performing procedures to obtain
audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements.
◦ The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s
judgment, including the assessment of the risks of
material misstatement of the financial statements,
whether due to fraud or error.
◦ In making those risk assessments, the auditor
considers internal control relevant to the City’s
preparation and fair presentation of the financial
statements in order to design audit procedures that
are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the
purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

PG CC 2/16/22
262 of 470
PG CC 2/16/22
263 of 470
Statement of Net Position
2021 2020 2021 2020
Assets
Current and other assets $ 30,015,890 $ 32,762,848 $ 6,085,460 $ 9,369,126 Capital assets 38,024,265 32,694,311 29,355,241 25,598,202 Total Assets $ 68,040,155 $ 65,457,159 $ 35,440,701 $ 34,967,328 Deferred Outflows of Resources $ 9,279,898 $ 8,420,059 $ 362,466 $ 352,196 Liabilities
Current and other liabilities $ 12,729,323 $ 13,998,603 $ 622,052 $ 1,057,239 Noncurrent liabilities 59,315,063 56,608,294 9,334,463 9,597,479 Total Liabilities $ 72,044,386 $ 70,606,897 $ 9,956,515 $ 10,654,718 Deferred Inflows of Resources $ 2,331,427 $ 3,766,328 $ 91,975 $ 150,217 Net Position
Net investment in capital assets $ 37,925,984 $ 32,572,615 $ 21,623,880 $ 17,471,699 Restricted 7,628,868 8,377,320 296,448 296,448
Unrestricted (42,610,612) (41,445,942) 3,834,349 6,746,442 Total Net Position $ 2,944,240 $ (496,007) $ 25,754,677 $ 24,514,589 Governmental Activities Business-Type Activities
PG CC 2/16/22
264 of 470
Pensions
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Proportion of Net Pension Liability 0.3730% 0.3824% 0.3994% 0.3977% 0.4118% 0.4169% 0.4226% Proportionate Share of
Net Pension Liability $ 23,123,343 $ 26,535,640 $ 34,564,209 $ 39,440,944 $ 39,679,281 $ 42,724,135 $ 45,982,402 Covered Payroll $ 5,543,503 $ 5,714,952 $ 6,248,635 $ 5,873,761 $ 7,328,064 $ 8,029,195 $ 8,120,599 Net Pension Liability
as a % of Covered Payroll 417.13% 464.32% 553.15% 671.48% 541.47% 532.11% 566.24% Plan's Fiduciary Net Position
as a % of the TPL 81.99% 78.40% 74.06% 73.31% 75.26% 75.26% 75.10% Fiscal Year
PG CC 2/16/22
265 of 470
OPEB
2018 2019 2020 2021
Total OPEB liability
Service cost $ 194,311 $ 168,509 $ 162,418 $ 227,721
Interest 119,338 139,246 150,001 149,231
Administrative expense - - 1,112 -
Changes of benefit terms - - (10,980) -
Differences between expected and actual experience - - 7,390 - Changes of assumptions (415,636) (152,945) 172,969 814,841 Benefit payments (171,120) (168,800) (156,858) (162,898) Net change in Total OPEB Liability (273,107) (13,990) 326,052 1,028,895 Total OPEB Liability - beginning 4,078,542 3,805,435 3,791,445 4,117,497 Total OPEB Liability - ending $ 3,805,435 $ 3,791,445 $ 4,117,497 $ 5,146,392 PG CC 2/16/22
266 of 470
Audit Results
No Exceptions in Audit Opinions
No Material Weaknesses
No Disagreements with Management
No Significant Passed on Adjustments
PG CC 2/16/22
267 of 470
Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Joe Amelio, Councilmember, Luke Coletti, Councilmember, Chaps Poduri, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2022
SUBJECT: Cannabis Outreach Subcommittee Update
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive report.

DISCUSSION
At its September 16, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance 20-022, which authorized the sale of Cannabis within Pacific Grove. The ordinance was immediately challenged by a citizens’ referendum entitled “Referendum Against An Ordinance Passed by the City Council, Ordinance 20-022.”
At its December 16, 2020 meeting, the City Council received a status report indicating the referendum failed by 3 out of the required 1,069 signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot. Therefore, Ordinance 20-022 did not ultimately require a vote of the people to become effective.

At its January 20, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance 21-003, which repealed Ordinance 20-022, thus repealing authorization for the sale of Cannabis within Pacific Grove.

At its June 16, 2021 meeting, the City Council formed a Cannabis Outreach Subcommittee, comprised of Councilmembers Amelio, Coletti, and Poduri, to provide input and direction to the City Manager for commencing a Cannabis outreach program.

The Subcommittee met twice and concluded that instead of pursuing public outreach for another Council ordinance (subject to referendum), Pacific Grove voters should first decide on whether a single recreational Cannabis dispensary is to be allowed. At its December 1, 2021 meeting, the City Council directed staff to return with two ballot measures for the November 8, 2022 General Election, asking voters to approve: (a) a recreational Cannabis dispensary and (b) a Cannabis tax.

The Subcommittee’s six-month term expired on December 16, 2021. The Council may wish to form another Cannabis Outreach Subcommittee once the results of the November 8, 2022 election are certified.

PG CC 2/16/22
268 of 470

OPTIONS

1. Do nothing.

2. Have staff provide a timeline for the November 8, 2022, ballot measures FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact in receiving the report.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Att 1 Map re 600 ft Radius
Att 2 Cal Cities Regs
PG CC 2/16/22
269 of 470
Legend
Parcels
Pacific Grove Youth Center
Pacific Grove Youth Center Buffer 600'
Day Cares
Day Care Buffer 600'
Schools
School Buffer 600'
Commercial Zone
Map showing 600-foot radius
around existing licensed
Daycare/Preschools, Youth
Center, and Schools
0 1,200 Feet [
DRAFT
PG CC 2/16/22
270 of 470
Seed to Sale:

A Guide to Regulating Cannabis
in California Cities
SEPTEMBER 2021
PG CC 2/16/22
271 of 470
| ii |
This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice.

Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials.

Copyright © 2021 by the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), Sacramento, California All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without Cal Cities’ permission. For information, contact the League of California Cities, 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 658-8200.

The League of California Cities gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the 2019–2021 Cannabis Regulation Committee members for their hard work and dedication in drafting this Guide:

Lauren Langer, Chair
Best Best & Krieger, LLP
City Attorney, West
Hollywood
Assistant City Attorney,
Hermosa Beach and
Lomita
Alexandra V. Atencio
Hanson Bridgett
Denise S. Bazzano
Burke, Williams
& Sorensen, LLP
Brian W. Byun
Best Best & Krieger
Emilio Camacho
Senior Deputy City
Attorney, Sacramento
Jeffrey V. Dunn
Best Best & Krieger
Michelle Garland
Deputy City Attorney, San
Diego
Jonathan P. Hobbs
City Attorney, Elk Grove
Steven Y. Itagaki
Supervising Deputy City
Attorney, Sacramento
Moses Johnson
Assistant City Attorney,
Anaheim
John D. Le
Assistant City Attorney,
Alameda
Jennifer Mizrahi
Stream Kim Hicks
Wrage & Alfaro, PC
City Attorney, Desert
Hot Springs
Tarquin Preziosi
Jones & Mayer
Beverly Roxas
Assistant City Attorney,
South Lake Tahoe
Brandon A. Sanchez
Best Best & Krieger
Bill Seligmann
Law Offices of William.

R. Seligmann
City Attorney, Campbell
Amadis Sotelo
Senior Deputy City
Attorney, Oakland
Lisa A. Vidra
Senior Deputy City
Attorney, Culver City
Andrea Visveshwara
Assistant City Attorney,
Emeryville
Ruthann G. Ziegler
Law Office of Ruthann
G. Ziegler
City Attorney, Citrus
Heights
City Attorneys
Department
Officer Liaisons
Amy Albano
City Attorney, Burbank
David M. Fleishman
City Attorney, Pismo
Beach
Richards, Watson
& Gershon
Eric Danly
City Attorney, Petaluma
League of California
Cities Staff
Corrie Manning
General Counsel
Harveen Gill
Assistant General Counsel
Alison Leary
Deputy General Counsel
Janet Leonard
Legal Assistant
PG CC 2/16/22
272 of 470
| iii |
Table of Contents
PART 1 | Introduction and Overview..................................................................................................................1 PART 2 | Regulatory Framework..........................................................................................................................3 I. Early Federal Regulation .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) ......................................................................................................................... 3 III. California Uniform Controlled Substances Act (UCSA) .............................................................................................6 IV. Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) ..............................................................................................................................6 V. Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) ............................................................................................................................ 7 VI. California Attorney General Guidelines .............................................................................................................................9 VII. Control Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64 or AUMA) ..................................10 A. State Agencies........................................................................................................................................................................10 B. Types of Licenses under AUMA..................................................................................................................................12 C. Local Control and Regulation......................................................................................................................................13 D. Taxation ......................................................................................................................................................................................15 VIII. Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) ........................................16 A. State Licensing.......................................................................................................................................................................17 B. Local Control and Regulation......................................................................................................................................19 C. Advertising.............................................................................................................................................................................. 20 D. Transportation and Delivery ...................................................................................................................................... 20 IX. July 2021 Consolidation of Cannabis Programs into the Department of Cannabis Control ................ 20 PART 3 | Regulating Cannabis in Cities .......................................................................................................23 I. Municipal Authority to Regulate Cannabis Generally...................................................................................................23 A. The Effect of State Law...................................................................................................................................................23 B. The Effect of Federal Law..............................................................................................................................................24 II. Regulation of Cannabis-Related Personal Conduct .....................................................................................................24 A. Personal Conduct Authorized....................................................................................................................................24 B. Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use.................................................................................................................26 III. Regulation of Commercial Cannabis Activity................................................................................................................27 A. Land Use Considerations ...............................................................................................................................................28 B. Local Ordinances...................................................................................................................................................................31 C. Commercial Cannabis Cultivation............................................................................................................................34 D. Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing...................................................................................................................35 E. Commercial Cannabis Testing.....................................................................................................................................37 F. Commercial Cannabis Distribution..........................................................................................................................37 G. Commercial Cannabis Retail ......................................................................................................................................38 H. Cannabis Microbusinesses.............................................................................................................................................42 I. Temporary Cannabis Events...........................................................................................................................................43 J. Cannabidiol (CBD) ...............................................................................................................................................................44 PG CC 2/16/22
273 of 470
| iv |
PART 4 | Finance and Taxation ......................................................................................................................... 47 I. Fees and Costs .................................................................................................................................................................................47 A. Cost to Cities...........................................................................................................................................................................47 B. Fees................................................................................................................................................................................................47 II. Taxes......................................................................................................................................................................................................52 A. State Taxes................................................................................................................................................................................52 B. Local Taxes ...............................................................................................................................................................................54 III. Banking ..............................................................................................................................................................................................55 A. Federal Law .............................................................................................................................................................................55 B. Legislative Fixes and Alternative Solutions......................................................................................................57 IV. Fee and Tax Collection Considerations ............................................................................................................................57 PART 5 | Enforcement Tools.................................................................................................................................59 I. Civil Enforcement ............................................................................................................................................................................59 A. Civil Injunction ......................................................................................................................................................................59 B. Nuisance Per Se and Cannabis Law....................................................................................................................... 60 II. Criminal Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................................64 A. Prosecution of Municipal Code Violations ........................................................................................................64 B. Prosecutions of State Law Violations....................................................................................................................65 C. Criminal Investigations ...................................................................................................................................................65 III. Administrative Enforcement ..................................................................................................................................................66 A. Administrative Fines..........................................................................................................................................................66 B. Administrative Abatement............................................................................................................................................68 C. Notice and Order to Vacate (Also Known As, Red-Tagging)...............................................................69 D. Disconnection of Utilities................................................................................................................................................71 E. Permit Modification, Suspension, or Revocation ..........................................................................................72 F. State Law Administrative Enforcement ...............................................................................................................73 APPENDIX I | Criminal Enforcement of Misdemeanors.................................................................... 74 Field Citation Versus Complaint for Arrest Warrant .........................................................................................................74 Identification and Selection of Defendants...........................................................................................................................74 Resolution of Criminal Prosecution............................................................................................................................................75 GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Table of Contents
PG CC 2/16/22
274 of 470
| 1 |
Part 1 — Introduction and Overview
PART 1 | Introduction and
Overview
California, as recognized by the United States
Supreme Court, has been a pioneer in cannabis
regulation.1
In 1913, California was one of the
first states to prohibit the sale and possession of
cannabis.2 At the time, the legislation referred to
the drug as “loco-weed.”3
Eighty-three years later in
1996, California became the first state to authorize
the use of “marijuana” for medicinal purposes.4
Today, the adult use of cannabis for non-medicinal
purposes has been decriminalized in California. The
State licenses the commercial cannabis businesses,
and the industry is regulated from seed to sale.

In 2020, it is estimated that cannabis sales in the
State hit $4.4 billion.

In that same pioneering spirit, the Cannabis
Regulation Committee (Committee) of the League
of California Cities City Attorneys Department
is pleased to present the first edition of Seed
to Sale: A Guide to Regulating Cannabis in
California Cities (Guide), which is intended to assist
municipal attorneys in addressing legal issues
related to cannabis regulation. Cannabis issues
are particularly challenging for local government
due to the lack of legal precedent and constantly
evolving laws. For this reason, it is important that
municipal attorneys stay abreast of current cases
and precedent from other legal fields that can be
applied to advise clients and offer solutions as
cannabis issues arise. To that end, the Committee
offers this Guide as a comprehensive and practical
compilation of city attorney experience from
throughout California.
1 Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 5.
2 Ibid.
3 Stats. 1913, ch. 342, §6 (“The possession of a pipe or pipes used for smoking … extracts, tinctures, or other narcotic preparations of hemp, or loco-weed, their preparations or compounds… is hereby made a misdemeanor ….”). 4 Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 5; Cal. Health and Saf. Code, § 11362.5.

The Guide is a starting point for approaching
cannabis regulation questions. It is a useful tool to
learn about the historical development of cannabis
law, understand its current status, and consider
practical approaches and tips to handle regulation
issues. After this introduction, Part Two provides
a historical overview of cannabis law and the
regulatory framework at the federal and state level.

Part Three presents the Committee’s perspective
on regulating cannabis in cities. Part Four examines
cannabis-related finance and taxation. Finally, Part
Five outlines enforcement tools available for cities.

The Guide will help municipal attorneys better
understand the intersectionality of cannabis
issues with other relevant fields such as land use,
environmental law, taxation, and public health and
safety, among others. Equally important, the Guide
can be used as a reference to analyze regulation
options at the administrative, civil, and criminal
levels, to achieve particular goals within a city.

PG CC 2/16/22
275 of 470
| 2 |
Part 1 — Introduction and Overview
Before you get started, we have one editorial note:

Throughout history, the plant with the scientific
name of Cannabis Sativa L. has been given
many nicknames, some intentionally threatening,
others simply amusing. In modern law, the terms
“cannabis” and “marijuana” are most widely used,
and are often interchangeable. For purposes of
this Guide, “cannabis” is the preferred terminology.

First, the term cannabis is currently preferred in
California law. Second, it is now widely understood
that the term “marijuana” has a negative,
xenophobic, and racist connotation, stemming
back to anti-immigration sentiments beginning in
the 20th century. Due to the negative connotation
of the word marijuana, the term “cannabis” will
be used in this Guide, unless there is a specific
reference otherwise (e.g. in the name of a
legislative act, or in a quotation or statute).

We hope you find the publication useful in your
city’s involvement with cannabis issues. The League
of California Cities intends to update this guide
periodically to reflect the latest developments in
cannabis regulation.

Cannabis Regulation Committee
League of California Cities
City Attorneys Department
September 2021
PG CC 2/16/22
276 of 470
| 3 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
PART 2 | Regulatory
Framework
I. EARLY FEDERAL REGULATION
The Federal Government first attempted to regulate
the national drug market in 1906 by imposing
labeling regulations on medications and prohibiting
the manufacture or shipment of any adulterated
or misbranded drug in interstate commerce.5
Subsequent federal drug regulations were
generally found in revenue laws, like the Harrison
Narcotics Act of 1914, which required producers,
distributors, and purchasers of narcotics—
specifically cocaine and opiates—to register with
the Federal Government, pay taxes, and comply
with prescription regulations.6
In 1937, when accounts arose of the addictive
qualities and physiological effects of “marihuana,”
the Federal Government enacted the Marihuana
Tax Act.7
Like the Harrison Act, the Marihuana Tax
Act did not prohibit cannabis outright, but required
those who import, produce, sell, or deal in the drug
to register with the government, pay prohibitively
expensive taxes, and comply with burdensome
administrative requirements for prescriptions.8 As a
result, even though the Marihuana Tax Act did not
declare the drug illegal, it had the practical effect of curtailing the cannabis trade.9
5 Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 10-11.
6 Ibid.
7 Id. at p. 11.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 10. 11 Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 10.
12 21 U.S.C. §§ 811, 812.

II. FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
ACT (CSA)
In the 1970s, federal drug policy underwent a
significant transformation. Shortly after taking
office, President Nixon declared a national “war on
drugs” and Congress enacted the Comprehensive
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.10
The legislation consolidated various drug laws on
the books into a comprehensive statute, provided
uniform regulation to prevent diversion into illegal
channels, and strengthened law enforcement tools
against illegal drug trafficking.11
Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act is the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA). The CSA categorizes all
controlled substances into five schedules based
on their accepted medical uses, the potential for
abuse, and their psychological and physical effects
on the body.12 Cannabis, or “marihuana” as it is
PG CC 2/16/22
277 of 470
| 4 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
termed in the CSA, is classified as a Schedule I
drug, which means the federal government views
cannabis as having high potential for abuse, no
accepted medical use, and not safe for use in
medically supervised treatment.13 Because the
CSA classifies cannabis as a Schedule I drug,
as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule,
the manufacture, distribution, or possession of
cannabis is a federal criminal offense, with the sole
exception being its use as part of a preapproved
research study.14
Despite considerable efforts to change the policy,
cannabis remains a Schedule I drug.15 Moreover,
the CSA does not recognize a medical necessity
defense to its cannabis prohibitions.16 Accordingly,
the manufacture, distribution, or possession
of cannabis, even for medicinal purposes, is
prohibited under federal law.

The CSA remains enforceable in California, even
though these cannabis activities are now allowed
by State law. The courts have found that the
CSA’s cannabis regulations are a valid exercise of
Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,
even as applied to purely local cannabis activities
13 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, subd. (b)(1) and (c).
14 Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 14, citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a); see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 490.
15 Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 15; see Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Admin. (D.C. Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 438, 453 (denial of petition to review the DEA’s decision to maintain cannabis as a Schedule I drug.). 16 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., supra, 532 U.S. 483, 491; but see Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850, 858-860. 17 Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 29.
18 Oklevueha Native Amer. Church of Haw., Inc. v. Lynch (9th Cir. 2016) 828 F.3d 1012 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection Clause). See also Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850 [Substantive Due Process, Tenth Amendment]; Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana v. Holder (N.D. Cal. 2011) 866 F.Supp.2d 1142 (Substantive Due Process, Tenth Amendment, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause); Sacramento Nonprofit Collective v. Holder (E.D. Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 1100 (Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Equal Protection).
19 21 U.S.C. § 903; Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 251. 20 Kirby v. City. of Fresno (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 940, 963 (no preemption of MMPA’s prohibition of arrests); Qualified Patients Ass’n v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 756 (no preemption of CUA’s or MMPA’s marijuana decriminalization provisions); County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 818 (no preemption of MMPA’s identification card program); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 (no preemption of right to return of impounded marijuana under CUA or MMPA). But see Conejo Wellness Ctr., Inc. v City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1558, fn. 5 (authorization of medical marijuana activity is likely subject to federal preemption). 21 It should be noted that as of the publication of this Guide, the term “storefront retail” is a more modern term for what used to be known as “dispensary.” 22 City of Palm Springs v Luna Crest, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 879, 884-886. 23 James v City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir 2012) 700 F3d 394. allowed by State law.17 Courts have also upheld
enforcement of the CSA’s cannabis regulations
against a variety of other legal challenges.18
At the same time, the CSA explicitly contemplates
that states can adopt their own controlled
substance regulations, so long as there is not
“a positive conflict between [the CSA]… and that
state law so that the two cannot consistently
stand together.”19 Indeed, several courts have held
that the CSA does not preempt recent California
laws allowing cannabis activity.20 Notably, one
court has held that the CSA does not preempt a
municipal ordinance requiring medicinal cannabis
dispensaries21 to obtain permits.22 Another court
ruled that, because medicinal cannabis use
remains illegal under federal law, the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) does not protect
against discrimination on the basis of medicinal
cannabis use, even if that use is in accordance with
state law explicitly authorizing such use.23
Nevertheless, for many years, the federal
government has not been prosecuting cannabis
crimes in states where cannabis is legal and the
activity is done in accordance with state law. This is
PG CC 2/16/22
278 of 470
| 5 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
due in large part to: (1) Department of Justice (DOJ)
memoranda—most notably the “Cole Memo”24—
providing policy guidance to federal prosecutors
and law enforcement on where to focus
enforcement efforts; and (2) the “Rohrabacher-Farr
Amendment.”

1. The Cole Memo told federal prosecutors in
states that had legalized cannabis they should
use their prosecutorial discretion to focus
not on businesses that comply with state
regulations, but on illicit enterprises that create
harms, like operating with dangerous drug
cartels, use of firearms, and distribution to
minors. The assumed directive from this memo
was that, if a state has legalized cannabis and
put in place its own regulatory system, the
DOJ should leave those operating within that
system alone.

2. The federal budget also contains a provision
known as the Rohrabacher-Farr25 Amendment,
which prevents the Justice Department from
using any resources to prosecute statecompliant medicinal cannabis operations in states that have legalized medicinal cannabis.

In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
confirmed that while this amendment is in
place the DOJ could not spend federal funds
to prosecute individuals engaged in conduct
permitted by state medicinal cannabis laws.26
This amendment is a restriction on the use of
federal funds and does not provide immunity
from prosecution for federal drug crimes.27
24 James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement (August 29, 2013), available at http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf. 25 Also referred to more recently as the Rohrabacher-Blumenaeur Amendment. 26 U.S. v. McIntosh (2016) 833 F.3d 1163. The California defendants in this case ran four medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles and had nine outdoor cannabis grows in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It appears that the San Francisco U.S. Attorney’s office attempted to prosecute this case, and not the Los Angeles office.
27 Id. at p. 1180, fn. 5.
28 Jeffrey B. Sessions, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Marijuana Enforcement (January 4, 2018), available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-memo-marijuana-enforcement.

The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment must be
renewed annually with the federal budget.

Historically, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment has
received bi-partisan support for its inclusion in the
federal budget.

In 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions
released his own guidance memorandum (Sessions
Memo) on the subject of federal prosecution of
cannabis activity and in doing so rescinded the
Cole Memo.28 While the Sessions Memo removed
any perceived safe harbor that may have existed
for state-authorized cannabis activity, the Sessions
Memo does not direct U.S. Attorneys to prosecute
cannabis-related crimes. Essentially, the Sessions
Memo removed any de-prioritization for cannabis
crimes and reminded U.S. Attorneys that they can
use their normal prosecutorial discretion. At the
time of writing this Guide, the Biden Administration
and current Attorney General, Merrick Garland,
have not released updated guidance on federal
prosecution of cannabis activity. Nevertheless,
California has not seen an uptick of federal
enforcement of cannabis activities conducted in
compliance with state law since the issuance of
the Sessions Memo. The drafters of this Guide
have seen nothing at this time to suggest that
United States Attorneys in California will prioritize
prosecuting state-authorized cannabis activity over
the more serious and dangerous crimes they are
charged with enforcing.

PG CC 2/16/22
279 of 470
| 6 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
III. CALIFORNIA UNIFORM CONTROLLED

SUBSTANCES ACT (UCSA)
The State has the power to regulate controlled
substances in the interest of the public health
and welfare.29 Furthermore, Congress expressly
provided that the federal CSA does not preempt
state regulation of controlled substances like the
California Uniform Controlled Substances Act
(UCSA).30 Thus, in 1972, shortly after the enactment
of the CSA, the State of California consolidated
its narcotics laws under the UCSA.31 Chapter 6,
Article 2 of the UCSA set forth criminal prohibitions
and punishments for the possession, cultivation,
transportation, and distribution of cannabis.32
29 Robinson v. California (1962) 370 U.S. 660, 664.
30 21 U.S.C. § 903. (“No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the filed in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.”)
31 Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 11000, et seq.
32 Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 11357 et seq. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11357 [possession of cannabis is a misdemeanor], 11358 [cultivation of cannabis is a felony], 11359 [possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis is a felony], 11360 [transporting, selling, or giving away cannabis in California is a felony; under 28.5 grams is a misdemeanor], 11361 [selling or distributing cannabis to minors, or using a minor to transport, sell, or give away cannabis, is a felony].
33 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).
34 People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 (citing People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549.) 35 People v. Rigo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 409.
36 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (e).

Only 24 years later, the cannabis regulations
in the UCSA would undergo a significant
transformation when California voters approved the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

IV. COMPASSIONATE USE ACT OF 1996 (CUA)
The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (CUA) was
approved by California voters through Proposition
215. The CUA is codified at Health & Safety Code
section 11362.5. It provides that certain state
criminal laws relating to the possession and
cultivation of cannabis “shall not apply to a patient,
or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses
or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical
purposes of the patient upon the written or oral
recommendation or approval of a physician.”33
Thus, qualified patients (or their primary caregiver)
may possess and cultivate any amount of cannabis
reasonably necessary for the patient’s current
medical condition.34 However, the CUA is very
limited in scope.

First, the CUA only applies to qualified patients,
and their primary caregiver, who have obtained
the written or oral recommendation of a physician
before cultivating or possessing cannabis, not
after.35 A primary caregiver is a defined term with
different components.36 A person does not qualify
as a primary caregiver merely by having a patient
PG CC 2/16/22
280 of 470
| 7 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
designate him or her as such or by the provision of
medicinal cannabis itself.37
Second, the CUA is narrowly drafted to limit
cannabis use for the patient’s own personal
medical purposes.38 While a primary caregiver
could care for and cultivate more than one patient’s
cannabis, the CUA does not allow patients and
their caregivers to “pool talents, efforts, and
money to create a stockpile of marijuana that is to
be collectively distributed.” 39 The CUA does not
authorize, or even mention, medicinal cannabis
dispensaries. Collectives and cooperatives were
only authorized years later in the Medical Marijuana
Program Act (MMPA).

Third, the CUA does not decriminalize all medicinal
cannabis-related conduct; it grants a defendant a
limited immunity from prosecution, allowing for a
motion to set aside an indictment or information
prior to trial.40 Such decriminalization only applies
to cultivation and possession. The CUA does
not provide a defense to other cannabis-related
conduct, such as transportation41 or sale.42 Because
the CUA does not actually “legalize” cannabis,
but only determines that no punishment will be
imposed on certain cannabis offenses under state
law, the CUA is not preempted by the federal
CSA.43
37 Ibid. See also People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997, 1016 (“Individuals operating a marijuana-buying cooperative do not, by providing medical patients with medicinal marijuana, consistently assume responsibility for the health of those patients.”). 38 People v Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 768.
39 Ibid.
40 People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 480. See also People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1014; Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications (2008) 42 Cal.4th 920, 926.
41 People v. Young (2001) 92 Ca.App.4th 229, 235-237; People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1550-1551 (the CUA only provides an implied defense to transportation of cannabis when “the quantity transported and the method, timing and distance of the transportation are reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.”).
42 People v. Galambos (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152; People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1389-1390. 43 City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (Kha) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 371-373, 381-382. 44 Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications, Inc., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 928. 45 Id. at p. 931.
46 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.

The modest and narrow immunity provisions of
the CUA, while groundbreaking for its time, limited
its effect on other issues. Despite the language of
the findings and declarations evincing an intent
to “ensure that seriously ill Californians have the
right to obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes,” courts held that the CUA did not create
“a broad right to use marijuana without hindrance
or inconvenience.”44 The CUA does not require an
employer to accommodate an employee’s use of
medicinal cannabis.45
Notably, more recently enacted California laws
authorizing various cannabis activities—such
as the Medical Marijuana Program Act in 2003
(MMPA), the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult
Use of Marijuana Act in 2016 (AUMA), and the
Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation
and Safety Act in 2017 (MAUCRSA), discussed
below—may have rendered complete reliance on
the CUA as a defense to cannabis-related charges
somewhat unnecessary.

V. MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM ACT
(MMPA)
In 2003, the California Legislature passed the
MMPA46 to “implement a plan to provide for the
safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to
all patients in need of medical marijuana,” as
PG CC 2/16/22
281 of 470
| 8 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
expressed by the voters in the CUA.47 The MMPA’s
intent was to:
a. Clarify the scope of the CUA and facilitate the
prompt identification of qualified patients and
their designated primary caregivers to avoid
unnecessary arrests and provide needed
guidance to law enforcement officers;
b. Promote uniform and consistent application of
the CUA;
c. Enhance the access of patients and caregivers
to medicinal cannabis through collective,
cooperative cultivation projects; and
d. Address additional issues not included within
the CUA.48
The MMPA creates a voluntary program for issuing
identification cards to qualified patients and their
primary caregivers. Under the MMPA, the California
Department of Health Services is required to
establish and maintain a program under which
qualified applicants may apply for a California
identification card, to be annually renewed,
identifying them as qualified for exemptions. County
health departments are mandated to operate the
program under state protocols. The program is
also designed to provide law enforcement with
a method to immediately verify the validity of
identification cards.49
47 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C).
48 Stats. 2003, Ch. 875, §1, subd. (b)–(c).
49 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.71, 11362.72.
50 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.765, subd. (b)(1)–(2).
51 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.765, subd. (b)(2)–(3).
52 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.7, subd. (e).
53 Former Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775. Courts of appeal reached varying conclusions regarding whether former Health & Safety Code, section 11362.775 immunized the sale and distribution of medicinal cannabis or whether it protected only collective cultivation. (Compare In People ex rel Trutanich v. Joseph (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1512 [holding that the statute protects group activity only to cultivate cannabis for medicinal purposes; it does not immunize dispensing or selling cannabis] with People v. Jackson (2012) 210 Cal. App.4th 525 [expressly rejecting the Joseph court’s interpretation].) The MMPA expressly immunizes qualified persons
with identification cards who transport or possess
cannabis for their personal medicinal use.50
Qualified caregivers (and those who provide
assistance to the patient or caregivers) who
transport, process, administer, deliver, or give
away cannabis for medicinal purposes to qualified
patients or other caregivers are also expressly
immunized under the statute.51 In contrast to
MAUCRSA, which restricts adult-use cannabis to
persons age 21 and up, the MMPA does not include
an age restriction. Therefore, persons ages 18-20
may be qualified patients and, therefore, obtain
medicinal cannabis. In addition, minors may obtain
medicinal cannabis with parental consent.52
Section 11362.775 of the MMPA also provided that
qualified persons with valid identification cards,
and their designated primary caregivers, who
associate “collectively or cooperatively” to cultivate
cannabis for medicinal purposes, could not be
subject to state criminal law sanctions, including
for the sale of cannabis, solely on that basis.53
However, in January 2019, MAUCRSA repealed
Section 11362.775; accordingly, today collectives
and cooperatives are subject to the same state and
local licensing and permitting provisions as any
other license or permit applicant.

PG CC 2/16/22
282 of 470
| 9 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
While the MMPA also established limits on the
quantity of cannabis that qualified persons and
primary caregivers could possess, the California
Supreme Court struck down the quantitative
limitations holding that the Legislature did not have
the authority to amend the initiated state statute in
that manner.54 Nevertheless, the section was not
removed from the MMPA.55
The first published decision following the MMPA’s
passage found that the MMPA “represent[ed] a
dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use,
distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons
who are qualified patients or primary caregivers...”56
Despite this broad pronouncement regarding the
MMPA’s purpose, the California Supreme Court
has narrowly interpreted the additional immunities
conferred by the MMPA.57
VI. CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL

GUIDELINES
The MMPA required the Attorney General to
“develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to
ensure the security and non-diversion of marijuana
grown for medical use by patients qualified under
the [CUA].”58 The Attorney General adopted such
guidelines in August 2008 (2008 Guidelines).59
The purpose of the 2008 Guidelines was to:
(1) ensure that cannabis grown for medicinal
purposes remains secure and does not find its
way to nonpatients or illicit markets, (2) help
law enforcement agencies perform their duties
54 People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1043-1049.
55 Id. at pp. 1047-1048.
56 People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 747, 785. 57 See City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Ctr., Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 744 (acknowledging MMPA’s “limited reach” and holding that it did not preempt local zoning regulations). See also, People v. Mentch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 274, 290 (while MMPA does convey additional immunities against cultivation and possession-for-sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so only for specific actions). 58 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.81, subd. (d).
59 California Office of the Attorney General, Atty. General Brown Issues Medical Marijuana Guidelines for Law Enforcement and Patients (August 25, 2008), available at https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/atty-general-brown-issues-medical-marijuana-guidelines-law-enforcement-and. 60 See e.g., People v. Hochanadel (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 997. 61 See California Office of the Attorney General, Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Cannabis Grown for Medicinal Use (2019), available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/MEDICINAL%20CANNABIS%20Guidelines.pdf. effectively and in accordance with California
law, and (3) help patients and primary caregivers
understand how they may cultivate, transport,
possess, and use medicinal cannabis under
California law. Although the 2008 Guidelines are
not binding, many courts have afforded them
great weight and have relied on them in resolving
medicinal cannabis issues.60 The 2008 Guidelines
were also helpful in articulating the appropriate
degree of local regulation of medicinal cannabis
dispensaries, a novel land use that proliferated
throughout the state after the adoption of the CUA
and MMPA.

On August 6, 2019, the Attorney General released
updated “Guidelines for the Security and NonDiversion of Cannabis Grown for Medicinal Use” (2019 Guidelines).61 The 2019 Guidelines provide a
helpful summary of applicable law, with compliance
and enforcement recommendations for individual
qualified persons and primary caregivers, as well
as for collectives and cooperatives, which under
MAURCSA, are required to obtain state licenses to
operate.

PG CC 2/16/22
283 of 470
| 10 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
VII. CONTROL REGULATE AND TAX ADULT
USE OF MARIJUANA ACT (PROPOSITION 64

OR AUMA)
On November 8, 2016, California voters approved
Proposition 64, the initiative known as the Control,
Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act
(AUMA). Unlike the earlier cannabis legalization
framework in Colorado, AUMA did not modify the
California Constitution; instead, it enacted and
modified a variety of state statutes.62
Section 3 of the ballot initiative set forth its
27 distinct purposes, which can be a guiding
resource in understanding the voters’ intent.63 The
statements of purpose and intent generally relate
to state regulation, local control, taxation, public
safety, public health, and enforcement.64 In addition
to reducing criminal penalties for cannabis-related
offenses,65 and providing funding for cannabisrelated research and social programs,66 AUMA established a comprehensive system to legalize,
control, and regulate the cultivation, processing,
manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of
nonmedicinal cannabis and cannabis products,
for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the
commercial growth and retail sale of cannabis.67
A. State Agencies
AUMA created a complex regulatory and licensing
scheme for commercial cannabis activities,
designating three main licensing authorities
and providing several other state agencies with
specific authority and responsibilities related to
62 See e.g., Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26000 et seq. 63 Proposition 64, section 3 (Nov. 9, 2016), available at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf 64 Proposition 64, section 3, subd. (a) – (aa) (Nov. 9, 2016), available at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20 %28Marijuana%29_1.pdf.
65 Health & Saf. Code, § 11357 et seq.
66 Rev. & Tax. Code, § 34019.
67 AUMA uses the term “marijuana”; the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), effective June 27, 2017 and discussed in Chapter Six, incorporated many of AUMA’s provisions; MAUCRSA also substituted the term “cannabis” for “marijuana.” This chapter uses the term “marijuana” when referring to specific aspects of AUMA; it uses the term “cannabis” for generic reference 68 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26012.
cannabis. This regulatory scheme was in effect until
July 12, 2021, when the Governor signed AB 141,
consolidating the three existing agencies charged
with licensing of commercial cannabis under AUMA
and creating the Department of Cannabis Control.

A summary of AB 141 and the Department of
Cannabis Control (DCC) may be found in Section IX
of Part II of this Guide.

1. Licensing Authorities
The three agencies charged with licensing of
commercial cannabis under AUMA were the
Bureau of Cannabis Control, within the California
Department of Consumer Affairs; the California
Department of Food and Agriculture; and the
California Department of Public Health.68 Each
of the three licensing authorities was charged
with making reasonable rules and regulations to
PG CC 2/16/22
284 of 470
| 11 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
implement, administer, and enforce their respective
duties.69, 70
a. Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau)
The Bureau was the lead agency tasked with
regulating commercial cannabis licenses
for medicinal and adult-use cannabis.71
AUMA gave the Bureau exclusive authority
for creating, issuing, denying, renewing,
disciplining, suspending, or revoking state
licenses for transportation, storage unrelated
to manufacturing activities, and distribution and
sale of cannabis and cannabis products.72
b. California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA)
CDFA was responsible for licensing the
commercial cultivation of cannabis.73 CDFA was
also responsible for the track-and-trace system,
which tracks the movement of cannabis and
cannabis products throughout the distribution
chain in California. CalCannabis Cultivation
Licensing, a division of CDFA, was organized
into two branches: the Licensing Branch and
Compliance and Enforcement Branch.

CDFA’s licensing included conditions from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) and the State Water Resources Control
69 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26013.
70 The DCC is expected to post consolidated regulations of the three former agencies in early 2022 at cannabis.ca.gov. 71 The Bureau was originally called the Bureau of Medical Marijuana, then renamed the Bureau of Marijuana Control by AUMA, and finally acquired its current title of Bureau of Cannabis Control under MAUCRSA. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26010, subd. (a).) 72 MAUCRSA subsequently transferred to the Bureau licensing authority as to microbusinesses and testing. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26012, subd. (a)(1).) 73 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26012, subd. (a)(2).
74 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26060(c).
75 AUMA initially delegated licenses for testing to CDPH the authority as to testing; MAUCRSA moved the testing to the Bureau. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §26012, subd. (a)(3).)
76 Bus. & Prof. Code, §26040 et seq.
77 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26043.
78 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26045.
79 https://www.ccap.ca.gov/laws_regs/ccr_6000_6018_code.pdf Board (SWRCB) related to the individual and
cumulative effects of water diversion and the
discharge associated with cultivation.74
c. California Department of Public Health (CDPH)
The California Department of Public Health
was responsible for licensing and regulating
all commercial cannabis manufacturing in
California.75 This included ensuring commercial
cannabis manufacturers operate safe, sanitary
workplaces and follow good manufacturing
practices to produce products that are free of
contaminants, meet product guidelines, and
are properly packaged and labeled.

2. Marijuana Control Appeals Panel
AUMA created the Marijuana Control Appeals
Panel, which is responsible for hearing appeals of
any decision by state cannabis licensing authorities
relating to any penalty assessment or the issuing,
denying, transferring, conditioning, suspending, or
revoking of a cannabis license.76 The Panel’s review
is based on a “substantial evidence” standard;77
the Panel’s decision may be reviewed in court.78
To implement its mandate, the Panel has adopted
regulations, which can be found online.79
PG CC 2/16/22
285 of 470
| 12 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework

3. California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR).

CDPR is responsible for developing guidelines
for the use of pesticides in the cultivation of
cannabis and residue in harvested cannabis.80 This
included coordination with CDFA. In practice, CDPR
focuses on three main areas: (1) providing statewide
guidance on the use of pesticides in the cultivation
of cannabis, and residue in harvested cannabis;
(2) providing guidance to the Bureau on testing
for pesticides; and (3) requiring that pesticides
being applied to cannabis comply with food and
agriculture standards. Pesticide products can be
legally used on cannabis in California, provided
they meet certain criteria approved by CDPR. The
criteria can be found online.81 CDPR will continue its
work, coordinating with DCC after the consolidation
of the licensing agencies.

4. Other State Agencies
State agencies — including, but not limited to the
State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal
Fire), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW), and the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), the California regional water
quality control boards (Water Boards), and state law
enforcement agencies — are required to address
environmental impacts of cannabis cultivation
and coordinate, when appropriate, with cities and
counties in enforcement efforts.82
80 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26060, subds. (b) and (e), renumbered and modified as Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26060, subds. (d) and (g) by MAUCRSA. SWRCB has regulatory authority for adopting principles and guidelines for diversion and use of water for cannabis cultivation, in consultation with CDFW. (Cal. Wat.

Code, §13149.) SWRCB has primary enforcement but is required to notify the CDFA of any enforcement action taken for violations. (Wat. Code, § 13149.) 81 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/cannabis/certain_criteria.pdf 82 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26066.
83 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26014, subd. (a).
84 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26014, subd. (b).
85 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26014, subd. (c).
86 MAUCRSA added License Type 1C, Cultivation, Specialty cottage, Small (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26050), MAUCRSA also authorized each licensing authority to create additional licenses. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26012, subd. (b).)

5. Cannabis Advisory Committee
The Bureau was charged with creating a committee
to advise the then-existing licensing authorities (the
Bureau, CDPH, and CDFA) on the development
of regulations that help protect public health
and safety, and reduce the illegal market for
cannabis.83 State statutes dictated that members
of the Committee must include, among others,
representatives of local agencies.84
The Committee is required to publish an annual
public report describing its activities including, but
not limited to, the recommendations the Committee
made to the licensing authorities during the
immediately preceding calendar year and whether
those recommendations were implemented by
the licensing agencies.85 The Committee’s annual
report was published on the Bureau’s website: bcc.
ca.gov, and will be transitioned to the new DCC
website cannabis.ca.gov.

B. Types of Licenses under AUMA
Under AUMA, there are 19 types of cannabisrelated licenses.86 This list was revised and expanded under MAUCRSA and is discussed in
more detail below.

PG CC 2/16/22
286 of 470
| 13 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
C. Local Control and Regulation

1. Personal Use of Cannabis
AUMA legalized persons age 21 or older smoking
or ingesting cannabis or cannabis-related products
under California law.87 AUMA also provided that a
person age 21 or older has a right to plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six living cannabis
plants, subject to reasonable local regulation.88
Although a city cannot prohibit these activities
inside a private residence or accessory structure
that is fully enclosed, secured, and located at a
private residence,89 cities can ban these activities
when done outdoors, even upon the grounds of a
private residence.90 Generally speaking, cannabis
cannot be smoked or ingested in public.
87 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(4).
88 Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.1, subd. (a)(3), 11362.2, subd. (a)(1). 89 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.2, subd. (b)(2).
90 Health & Saf. Code § 11362.2, subd. (b)(3).
91 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subds. (a)(1)–(2). Essentially, individuals at least 21 years old are able to “gift” cannabis as long as both parties are at least 21 years old and there is no compensation exchanged
92 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(5). Similarly, individuals over 21 are able to “gift” cannabis products as long as both parties are at least 21 years old and there is no compensation exchanged
93 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.45.
94 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (a).
95 Bus. & Prof. Code § 26055, subd. (e) under AUMA; MAUCRSA renumbered this provision to Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (d) and expanded the provision.

AUMA also legalized a person’s ability to possess,
process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away
to persons over 21 years of age or older, no more
than 28.5 grams of cannabis that is not in the form
of concentrated cannabis. (Concentrated cannabis
is restricted to eight grams.)91 Similarly, a person
may possess, transport, purchase, obtain, use,
manufacture, or give away cannabis accessories to
persons 21 years of age or older.92
However, AUMA preserved and enumerated
several restrictions on the manner and places in
which cannabis may be consumed or handled.93

2. Local Regulations
AUMA does not supersede or limit the authority
of a city to adopt and enforce local ordinances
regulating commercial cannabis-related activities
and cannabis-related businesses.94 Regulation
through local ordinance is allowed for, but is not
limited to, local zoning and land use requirements,
business license requirements, and requirements
related to reducing exposure to secondhand
smoke. A city may also completely ban commercial
cannabis activity. Furthermore, a licensing authority
must not approve a state license if such approval
would violate a city’s ordinance or regulation
adopted consistent with state law.95
PG CC 2/16/22
287 of 470
| 14 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
AUMA distinguishes between the authority to
regulate or ban the transportation of commercial
cannabis through a jurisdiction and the authority
to regulate or ban the delivery of commercial
cannabis inside a jurisdiction.96 The Bureau
adopted California Code of Regulations, title 16,
section 5416, subdivision (d), allowing delivery
statewide; most recently, the litigation challenging
this regulation as violative of AUMA was dismissed
as not ripe for adjudication because the court found
the Bureau’s regulation did not conflict with a city’s
right to control or ban delivery.97

3. Locational Restrictions
AUMA restricts the location of commercial cannabis
businesses.98 These restrictions are incorporated
into MAUCRSA and discussed in more detail below.

4. Authority to Conduct Law Enforcement
Activity and Local Enforcement Related to
Cannabis.

AUMA does not supersede or limit existing local
authority for law enforcement activity, enforcement
of local zoning requirements or local ordinances,
or enforcement of local license, permit, or other
authorization requirements.99 Also, it does not
require a licensing authority to undertake such
enforcement activities.100 Thus, a local jurisdiction
should conduct enforcement of its own laws and
requirements.
96 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26080, 26090.
97 Order, County of Santa Cruz v. Bureau of Cannabis Control (Super. Ct. Fresno County, 2019, No. 19CECG01224) (Nov. 17, 2020) (“With judicial estoppel principles in mind, the court wishes to make clear that it is persuaded by, agrees with and adopts the BCC’s argument that Regulation 5416(d) is not inconsistent with and does not preempt plaintiffs’ local ordinances regarding adult-use cannabis delivery, nor does it preclude plaintiffs from enforcing such ordinances. On the basis of that conclusion, the court finds that this matter is not ripe for adjudication, and dismisses the action as to all plaintiffs.”) 98 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054, subd. (b).
99 Bus. & Prof Code, § 26200, subd. (a).
100 Bus. & Prof Code, § 26200, subd. (b).
101 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(1).
102 Bus. & Prof Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(1)(D).
103 Bus. Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g).

5. Authority to Allow or Restrict Business
Activity Related to On-Site Cannabis
Consumption.

Under AUMA, the Bureau was authorized to issue
a state temporary event license to a licensee
authorizing onsite cannabis sales at a county fair
event, district agricultural association event, or
at another venue expressly approved by a local
jurisdiction, provided that the activities comply
with certain requirements.101 These events tend to
be large-scale gatherings, often with thousands of
people in attendance. It is important to note that the
Bureau was only authorized to issue a state license
for these events if the local jurisdiction authorizes
such events.102 However, it was unclear whether
the Bureau could issue a state license if the event
was held on state land located within a local
jurisdiction. In practice, the Bureau had required
local authorization even when the event was held
on state land (e.g., California State Fair located in
Sacramento).

AUMA authorizes local jurisdictions to allow
businesses where the public can smoke, vape,
or ingest cannabis or cannabis-related products
on premises, if specific conditions are met.103
Specifically, the business must comply with the
following: (1) access to the area where cannabis
consumption is allowed must be restricted to
persons 21 years of age or older; (2) cannabis
consumption must not be visible from any public
place or non-age-restricted area; and (3) sale
or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is not
PG CC 2/16/22
288 of 470
| 15 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
allowed on the premises. The law also authorizes
local jurisdictions to issue temporary licenses
to nonprofit entities primarily providing certain
products to low-income persons, subject to various
conditions.104
PRACTICE TIP: There is no state license
category for cannabis consumption
businesses. Some cities locally license
and permit cannabis consumption as an
accessory use to a cannabis retail business.

Some cities license and permit cannabis
consumption as a stand-alone business.

Either way, in order for the business to
receive a license from the state, in drafting a
cannabis licensing ordinance, the city should
identify the consumption business category
in the context of a state license category
(e.g. retail with consumption permitted).

6. Authority to Enforce State Laws and
Regulations.

A city attorney has the authority to bring a civil
action against a person engaging in commercial
cannabis activity without a license required under
state law, and each day may be considered a
separate violation. The penalties collected under
such action may be used to reimburse the city
attorney for costs associated with bringing the
action with the remainder to be deposited into the
state’s general fund.
104 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070.5.
105 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (d).
106 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (c).
107 Rev. & Tax Code, § 34100 et seq.
108 Rev. & Tax. Code, § 34021.

In the regulation of state-licensed facilities located
within a city, a city has the authority to enforce the
regulations of the licensing authority if the licensing authority delegates that authority to the city.105 A
complete discussion on enforcement is found later
in this Guide.

7. Coordination with the State.

A city had a duty to notify the Bureau upon
revocation of any local license, permit, or
authorization for a licensee to engage in
commercial cannabis activity within the city. Within
10 days of notification, the Bureau was required to
inform the relevant licensing authority to begin a
process to determine whether a license issued to
the licensee should be suspended or revoked.106
This same notification process remains in place
under the DCC.

D. Taxation
AUMA imposes state taxes on the commercial
cultivation and sale of both medicinal and
nonmedicinal cannabis.107 This state tax is in
addition to any tax imposed by a city, county, or city
and county.108 However, because a city may impose
a sales tax only with voter approval and because
medicinal cannabis, like any medicinal product, is
not subject to a sales tax, many cities have imposed
fees or taxes on the gross receipts of cannabis
businesses.

PG CC 2/16/22
289 of 470
| 16 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
Revenues collected from the state retail excise
tax and state tax on cultivation, in addition to
specified fines on businesses or individuals who
violate regulations, are deposited in the California
Marijuana Tax Fund.109 Funds generated from taxes
and fines are used to compensate state agencies
for any regulatory costs not covered by license
fees.110 In addition, a portion of revenues is meant
to be allocated to youth programs, environmental
clean-up efforts associated with illegal grows,
and programs designed to reduce driving under
the influence of alcohol, cannabis or other drugs,
among other things.111
The following chart describes the current taxes on
cannabis.112
Type of Tax Type of Cannabis Taxed Rate of Taxation
State tax on
cultivation113
Both medicinal and nonmedicinal $9.25 per ounce of dried cannabis flowers and $2.75 per ounce of dried cannabis leaves
State retail excise
tax114
Both medicinal and nonmedicinal 15% of gross receipts
Existing state and
local sales tax115
Nonmedicinal only116 Rates vary across the state
Existing state and
local use tax117
Nonmedicinal only118 Rates vary across the state
109 Rev. & Tax Code, § 34018.
110 Rev. & Tax. Code, § 34019.
111 Rev. & Tax. Code, §§ 34019, 34012, (a)(1)–(2), 34011 (a). 112 A city may still enact various fees under Proposition 26 (2010) related to cannabis activities, e.g., regulatory fees. 113 Rev. & Tax Code, § 34012, subd. (a)(1)–(2).
114 Rev. & Tax Code, § 34011, subd. (a)(1).
115 Rev. & Tax Code, § 6051.
116 Rev. & Tax Code, § 34011, subd. (f).
117 Rev. & Tax Code, § 6202.
118 Rev. & Tax Code, § 6202.

VIII. MEDICINAL AND ADULT USE OF

CANNABIS REGULATION AND SAFETY ACT
(MAUCRSA)
In 2015, California enacted the Medical Marijuana
Regulation and Safety Act (AB 243, AB 266,
and SB 643) (MMRSA). MMRSA established a
statewide regulatory scheme for the medicinal
cannabis industry, including licenses for cultivation,
manufacturing, testing, transportation, and
distribution. State licensing was expected to
commence in 2018, but before that could happen,
California voters approved AUMA to allow the use
of cannabis for non-medicinal purposes in 2016. As
a result, MMRSA did not last long enough for most
of its provisions to take effect.

PG CC 2/16/22
290 of 470
| 17 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
On June 27, 2017, California adopted SB 94, which
includes not only the Medical and Adult-Use
Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA119),
but also modifies a variety of statutes in the Fish
& Game Code, Food & Agriculture Code, Health &
Safety Code, and Vehicle Code. MAUCRSA repeals
MMRSA,120 while combining and harmonizing many
of its provisions with AUMA.

Prior to MAUCRSA, the applicable statutes used
the terms “marijuana” and “medical marijuana.”
MAUCRSA renames these terms as cannabis
and medicinal cannabis.121 Thus, the Bureau of
Marijuana Control and the Marijuana Control
Appeals Board, each created by AUMA, became
the Bureau of Cannabis Control (Bureau) and the
Cannabis Control Appeals Board. Similar changes
were made throughout various California Codes
to make applicable statutes consistently refer to
cannabis rather than marijuana.

A. State Licensing
MAUCRSA eliminates AUMA’s requirement that a
licensee be a California resident. MAUCRSA adds
another license type (Type 1C) to those delineated
by AUMA, and allowed the Bureau to add additional
license types,122 an authority it has exercised.123 The current types of licenses are:
(1) Type 1 — Cultivation; Specialty outdoor;
Small.
(2) Type 1A — Cultivation; Specialty indoor;
Small.
(3) Type 1B — Cultivation; Specialty mixed-light;
Small.
119 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 22000 et seq.
120 MMRSA, later modified to be the Medical Cannabis Safety and Regulation Act (MCRSA), related solely to medical cannabis. Since repealed by MAUCRSA, MMRSA/MCRSA is not discussed here.
121 One reason why SB 94 modified a broad range of statutes was to implement this change in terminology. 122 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26050.
123 The Bureau has added Types 13 and 14. (See e.g. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5014.) (4) Type 1C — Cultivation; Specialty cottage;
Small.
(5) Type 2 — Cultivation; Outdoor; Small.
(6) Type 2A — Cultivation; Indoor; Small.
(7) Type 2B — Cultivation; Mixed-light; Small.
(8) Type 3 — Cultivation; Outdoor; Medium.
(9) Type 3A — Cultivation; Indoor; Medium.
(10) Type 3B — Cultivation; Mixed-light;
Medium.
(11) Type 4 — Cultivation; Nursery.
(12) Type 5 — Cultivation; Outdoor; Large.
(13) Type 5A — Cultivation; Indoor; Large.
(14) Type 5B — Cultivation; Mixed-light; Large.
(15) Type 6 — Manufacturer 1.
(16) Type 7 — Manufacturer 2.
(17) Type 8 — Testing laboratory.
(18) Type 10 — Retailer.
(19) Type 11 — Distributor.
(20) Type 12 — Microbusiness.
(21) Type 13 — Distributor (transport only).
(22) Type 14 — Event Organizer.

PG CC 2/16/22
291 of 470
| 18 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
A state license is valid for one year from the date
of issuance and may be renewed annually. Each
license, except for testing labs, are designated
with an “A”, indicating adult commercial use, or
with an “M”, indicating medicinal use. A testing
lab license may test both adult commercial and
medicinal cannabis; its license is not marked with
an A or M.124 There are differences between an A
and an M license; an A-licensee may not sell to
persons under the age of 21 nor allow persons
under the age of 21 on the licensed premises.125
An M-licensee may allow any person age 18 and
over on the premises, and may sell to any person
age 18 and over, if such person possesses a valid
government-issued identification card and either a
valid physician’s recommendation or a valid countyissued identification card.126 With a few exceptions, discussed below, a licensee may hold multiple
licenses. However, each licensed premises must be
separate and distinct.127 No alcohol or tobacco may
be sold on the licensed premises.128
As discussed earlier, authority for issuing licenses
was divided among the Bureau, the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA). The Bureau issued licenses under Types 8
through 14, the CDPH issued licenses under Types
6 and 7, and the CDFA issued licenses under Types
1-5. The DCC became the sole licensing authority
as of July 12, 2021.129
124 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26050.
125 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26140, subd. (a).
126 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26140, subd. (c).
127 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26053, subd. (c).
128 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054, subd. (a).
129 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26012.
130 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26061, subd. (c).
131 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26061, subd. (d).
132 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26053, subd. (b).
133 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (f)(1).
134 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (f)(2).

Various restrictions exist on different types of
licenses. For example, license types 5, 5A, or
5B cannot be issued until January 1, 2023.130
Furthermore, a holder of license type 5, 5A, or 5B
may not also hold license type 8, 11, or 12.131 A type
8 licensee may not hold any other type of license
and may not employ anyone who works at another
licensed cannabis business, unless it is also a type
8 business.132

1. Coordination with the State
Under MAUCRSA, a city was required to provide
to the Bureau the city’s ordinances or regulations
relating to commercial cannabis activity, and the
name and contact information for the person
designated to serve as the contact for the Bureau
in regard to cannabis activity within the city. If no
contact was provided, the Bureau assumed the
contact was the clerk of the legislative body.133
The city should also provide the Bureau with any
changes to the contact person or to the city’s
ordinances or regulations.134 These obligations
on a City remain after the July 2021 consolidation
of agencies, and the City is obligated to send its
ordinances and regulations to the DCC.

When an application for a cannabis license is
received by the State (the Bureau under MAUCRSA
and currently the DCC), the state agency is
required to notify the city in which the business
proposes to operate, unless the applicant provides
evidence of compliance with the city’s ordinances
PG CC 2/16/22
292 of 470
| 19 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
or regulations. The city has 60 days in which to
respond, indicating whether the proposed business
complies with the jurisdiction’s ordinances and
regulations. No response from the city creates a
rebuttable presumption that the applicant complies
with the city’s ordinances and regulations.135 Even
after the 60-day period passes, the city may notify
the state agency in writing that the applicant or
licensee does not comply with the local ordinances
or regulations, and the licensing authority may
no longer presume compliance and may begin
disciplinary proceedings.136 The state agency
may not issue a license to a cannabis business
if the business would violate local ordinances or
regulations.137
In addition, under MAUCRSA, if the city revoked a
local license, permit, or authorization for a licensee
to operate a commercial cannabis business, the city
must notify the Bureau, and within 10 days of the
notice, the Bureau notified the CDFA or CDPH, if
that agency issued the license. As of July 12, 2021,
the DCC will begin a suspension or revocation
process within 60 days of being informed by the
city.138
Most cannabis-related licenses require local
authorization as a pre-condition to obtaining the
desired state license. This requirement provides
cities with significant power and discretion to
determine the cannabis landscape within their
borders. Likewise, it requires city attorneys to be
well-versed in the relevant and complex cannabis
laws and regulations governing each type of
license.
135 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g)(2)(D).
136 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g)(2)(E).
137 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g)(1).
138 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (d).
139 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (a)(1).
140 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (a)(2).
141 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26201.

PRACTICE TIP: Cities should designate
one staff contact person responsible for
responding to licensing inquiries from the
DCC, and provide that contact information
to the DCC. The two-step (local and state)
licensing process works best when there
is frequent and open communication on
licensing matters between state and city.

B. Local Control and Regulation
Cities retain the authority to adopt and enforce
ordinances regulating or prohibiting cannabis
businesses, including local zoning and land use
requirements and business license requirements.139
Similarly, local law enforcement retains the
authority to enforce local zoning requirements
and ordinances.140 State standards constitute
the minimum requirements as to health and
safety, environmental protection, testing, security,
food safety, and worker protections; a city may
establish additional standards, requirements, and
regulations.141

1. Locational Restrictions
Under state law, there are restrictions on the
location of cannabis businesses. A cannabis
business cannot be within a 600-foot radius of an
existing:
◆ School providing instruction in kindergarten or
any grades 1 through 12;
PG CC 2/16/22
293 of 470
| 20 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
◆ Day care center, as defined by Health & Safety
Code section 1596.76; or
◆ Youth center, as defined by Health & Safety
Code section 11353.1(e)(2).142
The 600 feet is measured as a straight line
between the property line of the cannabis business
and the closest property line of the lot on which
the cannabis business will be located, without
accounting for any intervening buildings.143
However, a city has the discretion to reduce the
600-foot restriction.144
C. Advertising
MAUCRSA imposes various restrictions on the
advertising of cannabis. For example, a licensee
142 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054, subd. (b).
143 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.768, subd. (c).
144 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054(b) (“A premise licensed under this division may not be located within a 600-foot radius …unless a … local jurisdiction specifies a different radius.”). See also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5026, subd. (b). 145 Bus & Prof. Code, § 26162, subd. (d).
146 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g).
147 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26080, subd. (b).
148 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (e).
may not advertise on a billboard located on an
interstate highway or on a state highway that
crosses the California border. 145 A licensee may not
advertise or market cannabis or cannabis products
within 1000 feet of a day care center, a school
providing instruction in kindergarten or any grades
1 through 12, a playground, or a youth center. 146
D. Transportation and Delivery
Delivery and transport of commercial cannabis
remains an issue. A local jurisdiction cannot ban the
transport of cannabis on public roads.147 However,
the delivery of cannabis must comply with local
law.148
IX. JULY 2021 CONSOLIDATION OF CANNABIS

PROGRAMS INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF

CANNABIS CONTROL
As this Guide was going to the publisher, on July
12, 2021, AB 141 was signed into law, as part of the
Budget Act of 2021. Four days later, SB 160 was
signed into law, making revisions and additions
to AB 141. These bills went into effect immediately
and amended numerous sections of the California
Health and Safety Code, most importantly
establishing the Department of Cannabis Control
(DCC) within the Business, Consumer Services and
Housing Agency. The powers, duties, functions,
responsibilities, regulations, and jurisdiction
for commercial cannabis activities previously
divided among the Bureau of Cannabis Control,
the Department of Food and Agriculture and the
Tada Images - stock.adobe.com
PG CC 2/16/22
294 of 470
| 21 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
Department of Public Health were transferred to
the newly created DCC.149
The majority of the changes made by AB 141 and
SB 160 involve consolidating the regulations of the
three previous licensing agencies into the same
title of the California Code of Regulations, making
it simpler for businesses, local governments, and
the public to understand the law. A new central
DCC website was established at https://cannabis.
ca.gov. There are a few substantive changes due
to the passage of this new legislation, but for
the most part, these do not affect a city’s local
control over commercial cannabis activity within
its jurisdiction, as established under AUMA and
MAUCRSA. The key substantive changes under
AB 141 and SB 160 include:
◆ The definition of “commercial cannabis
activity” has been revised to include acting
as a cannabis event organizer for temporary
cannabis events.150
◆ “Manufacturer” has been removed from the
definitions section; however, the Type 6 and
Type 7 licensee categories of “Manufacturer 1”
and “Manufacturer 2” remain.151
◆ The definition of “manufacture” has been
revised to include to package or label.152
◆ The provision in MAUCRSA that provided a
licensing authority could issue a provisional
license until January 1, 2022, has been
changed. The DCC may issue provisional
licenses until June 30, 2022, with new
149 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26010, 26010.7
150 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (j).
151 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26001, 26050, subds. (a)(15)–(16). 152 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (ah).
153 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26050.2.
154 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26244.
requirements and documentation for applicants
for a provisional license that include cultivation.

Provisional licenses may be issued until June
30, 2023, to a local equity license applicant
that includes cultivation activities, with certain
requirements. No provisional licenses shall
be renewed after January 1, 2025, and no
provisional license is effective after January 1,
2026. The legislature also expressed its intent
that no further exemptions from annual licenses
be adopted, and any licenses issued after
January 1, 2025, shall be issued in compliance
with all relevant environmental laws.153
◆ MAUCRSA, for purposes of the California
Cannabis Equity Act, defines local equity
program as a program adopted or operated
by a local jurisdiction that focuses on inclusion
and support of individuals and communities
who were negatively or disproportionately
affected by cannabis criminalization. MAUCRSA
required the former Bureau of Cannabis
Control to administer a grant program to assist
local jurisdictions with the development of local
equity programs. Under MAUCRSA the bureau
was authorized to enter into an agreement
with the Governor’s Office of Business and
Economic Development (GO-Biz) to administer
the program. Under the new legislation, GO-Biz
is required to administer the grant program.154
◆ The disciplinary procedures of MAUCRSA
have been revised to allow the DCC to
suspend, prior to a hearing, a license that has
been procured by fraud, misrepresentation,
deceit, or material misstatement of fact under
PG CC 2/16/22
295 of 470
| 22 |
Part 2 — Regulatory Framework
specified conditions, including an opportunity
for a post-suspension hearing pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, the
procedures for recovery of the DCC’s costs for
investigation and enforcement of disciplinary
proceedings have been clarified. Further, the
Superior Court is now vested with the authority
to enjoin violations of Division 10 of the
Business and Professions Code upon petition
by the DCC, and to order restitution to victims
of violations and reimbursement of the DCC’s
expenses related to such injunctions.155
◆ The DCC has been given authorization
to establish regulations governing the
designation, amount and exchange of trade
samples of cannabis and cannabis products by
and between licensees.156
The full text of AB 141 and SB 160 may be found
here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB141
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/
billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB160
155 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26031–26031.2.
156 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26153.1.

PG CC 2/16/22
296 of 470
| 23 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
PART 3 | Regulating
Cannabis in Cities
State cannabis law is designed to balance
decriminalization of certain personal cannabisrelated conduct with the intent to “[a]llow local governments to reasonably regulate the cultivation
of nonmedical marijuana for personal use by
adults 21 years and older through zoning and other
local laws, and only ban outdoor cultivation as set
forth in this Act.”157 This Part discusses the various
aspects of cannabis regulation in cities.

I. MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE

CANNABIS GENERALLY
Municipal authority in the regulation of cannabis is
generally derived from the California Constitution’s
grant of police powers.158 For charter cities, such
power is coupled with the Constitution’s grant of
municipal affairs authority.159
A. The Effect of State Law
The California Constitution limits cities’ exercise
of police power only to impose local laws that do
not conflict with “general” or state laws.160 A local
law conflicts with state law if it either (1) duplicates, (2) contradicts, or (3) enters a field which has been
fully occupied by state law, whether expressly or
157 Proposition 64, Section 3, subd. (m) (Nov. 9, 2016), available at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1. pdf.
158 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7 (“A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”).
159 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 5 (“It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws.”).
160 Cal Const art XI, §7.
161 California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1; Candid Enters., Inc. v. Grossmont Union High Sch. Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885; Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 383, 396. 162 Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 290; People ex rel Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal.3d 476, 484. 163 Cal. Const. art. XI, §5; Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 C4th 389, 397; Bishop v. City of San Jose (1969) 1 Cal.3d 56, 61, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in San Mateo City School Dist. v. Public Employment Relations Bd. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 850. by legislative implication.161 Local legislation that
conflicts with the general laws of the state is said
to be “preempted” and is void.162 However, charter
cities are exempt from this restriction in regard to
“municipal affairs.”163
Currently, state law fully occupies some fields,
such as cannabis-related personal conduct, as
described below. In many other fields, however,
state law expressly permits local control. For
example, municipal land use and business license
regulations are expressly permitted by MAUCRSA.

When enacting any cannabis-related regulations,
cities will need to analyze each regulation for state
law preemption.

PG CC 2/16/22
297 of 470
| 24 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
B. The Effect of Federal Law
Although California has enacted substantial
regulations to legitimize cannabis in recent years,
cities should remain cognizant of the fact that
it remains illegal under federal law.164 Despite
considerable efforts to change the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), cannabis remains a
Schedule I drug.165 Moreover, the CSA does
not recognize a medicinal necessity defense
to its cannabis prohibitions.166 Accordingly,
the manufacture, distribution, or possession
of cannabis, even for medicinal purposes, is
prohibited under federal law. The courts have
found that the CSA’s cannabis regulations are a
valid exercise of Congress’ authority under the
Commerce Clause, even as applied to purely
local cannabis activities allowed by state law.167
Courts have also upheld enforcement of the CSA’s
cannabis regulations against a variety of other legal
challenges.168
Nevertheless, the CSA also explicitly contemplates
that states would adopt their own controlled
substance regulations “unless there is a positive
conflict between that provision of [the CSA] and
that state law so that the two cannot consistently
stand together.”169 Indeed, several courts have held
that the CSA does not preempt recent California
164 Given the status of cannabis under federal law, there is an unresolved question of the effect of California Government Code section 37100, which allows cities to pass local laws that are “not in conflict” with state or federal law. 165 Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1, 15. See Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Admin. (D.C. Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 438, 453 (denial of petition to review the DEA’s decision to maintain cannabis as a Schedule I drug.). 166 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op. (2001) 532 U.S. 483, 491; but see Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850, 858-860. 167 Gonzales v Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 29.
168 Oklevueha Native Amer. Church of Haw., Inc. v. Lynch (9th Cir. 2016) 828 F.3d 1012 (Religious Freedom Restoration Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection Clause). See also Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850 [Substantive Due Process, Tenth Amendment]; Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana v. Holder (N.D. Cal. 2011) 866 F.Supp.2d 1142 (Substantive Due Process, Tenth Amendment, Equal Protection, Commerce Clause); Sacramento Nonprofit Collective v. Holder (E.D. Cal. 2012) 855 F.Supp.2d 1100 (Commerce Clause, Tenth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, Equal Protection).
169 21 U.S.C. § 903; Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) 546 U.S. 243, 251. 170 Kirby v. City of Fresno (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 940, 963 (no preemption of MMPA’s prohibition of arrests); Qualified Patients Assn. v. City of Anaheim (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 734, 756 (no preemption of CUA’s or MMPA’s marijuana decriminalization provisions); County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 798, 818 (no preemption of MMPA’s identification card program); City of Garden Grove v Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355 (no preemption of right to return of impounded marijuana under CUA or MMPA). But see Conejo Wellness Ctr., Inc. v City of Agoura Hills (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1558, fn. 5 (authorization of medical marijuana activity is likely subject to federal preemption). 171 It should be noted that as of the publication of this Guide, the term “storefront retail” is a more modern term for what used to be known as “dispensary.” 172 City of Palm Springs v. Luna Crest, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 879, 884-886. 173 James v. City of Costa Mesa (9th Cir. 2012) 700 F.3d 394. laws allowing cannabis activity.170 Similarly, one
court has held that the CSA does not preempt a
municipal ordinance requiring medicinal cannabis
dispensaries171 to obtain permits.172 Another case
ruled that because medicinal cannabis use remains
illegal under federal law, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 does not protect against
discrimination on the basis of medicinal cannabis
use, even if that use is in accordance with state law
explicitly authorizing such use.173
II. REGULATION OF CANNABIS-RELATED

PERSONAL CONDUCT
As discussed in more detail earlier in this Guide,
the majority of AUMA was incorporated into
MAUCRSA; however, the operative sections of
AUMA governing personal cannabis use remained
unchanged.

A. Personal Conduct Authorized

1. Medicinal Cannabis
Even though AUMA and MAUCRSA were enacted
later, the CUA is still the touchstone on medicinalcannabis-related personal conduct. The CUA provides that certain state criminal laws relating to
PG CC 2/16/22
298 of 470
| 25 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
the possession and cultivation of cannabis “shall
not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary
caregiver, who possesses or cultivates cannabis
for the personal medicinal purposes of the patient
upon the written or oral recommendation or
approval of a physician.”174 This allows a qualified
patient (or their primary caregiver) to possess
and cultivate any amount of cannabis reasonably
necessary for their current medical condition.175 For
additional details on the scope of the CUA, see Part
I of this Guide.

However, it does not preempt local ordinances
regulating or banning the cultivation of medicinal
cannabis.176 And it does not preempt local
ordinances that completely and permanently
banned medicinal cannabis dispensaries that were
later allowed under the Medical Marijuana Program
Act.177

2. Non-Medicinal Cannabis
In 2016, AUMA made it expressly legal for those
age 21 and older to:
◆ Possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain,
or give away to persons 21 years of age or
older without any compensation whatsoever,
not more than 28.5 grams of cannabis,178 or not
more than 8 grams of concentrated cannabis,
including as contained in cannabis products;
◆ Possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or
process up to six living cannabis plants and
174 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.5, subd. (d).
175 People v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1013 (citing People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549.). 176 Kirby v. County of Fresno (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 940, 969-970; Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975; Browne v. County of Tehama (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 704.
177 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729. 178 This equates to just under an ounce.
179 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a).
180 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a)(2).
possess the cannabis produced by the plants;
and
◆ Smoke or ingest cannabis or cannabis
products.179
However, personal use and consumption is not
unfettered. For example, cannabis in excess of 28.5
grams that is produced by plants kept pursuant
to the personal cultivation provision of the Act
must be kept in a locked space on the grounds
of a private residence that is not visible from a
public place.180 In addition, state law prohibits the
following:
◆ Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis
products in public, except as authorized
locally (for example in cannabis consumption
lounges);
◆ Smoking cannabis or cannabis products where
smoking tobacco is prohibited;
◆ Smoking cannabis or cannabis products within
1,000 feet of a school, day care center, or youth
center while children are present, with certain
exceptions;
◆ Possessing an open container of cannabis or
cannabis products while driving, operating, or
riding in a motor vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft,
or other vehicle used for transportation;
◆ Possessing, smoking, or ingesting cannabis or
cannabis products on the grounds of a school,
PG CC 2/16/22
299 of 470
| 26 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
day care center, or youth center while children
are present; and
◆ Smoking or ingesting cannabis or cannabis
products while driving or riding in a motor
vehicle, boat, vessel, aircraft, or other
vehicle used for transportation, with certain
exceptions.181
With the notable exception of cannabis cultivation,
as discussed below, cities cannot regulate the
personal cannabis-related conduct that is expressly
authorized by AUMA.182 However, AUMA expressly
provides that cities may regulate or prohibit
any cannabis-related personal conduct within a
government owned, leased, or occupied building.183
Additionally, AUMA maintained the rights and
obligations of cities, as public employers, to
maintain drug-free workplaces, to prohibit cannabis
activity in the workplace, and to implement policies
prohibiting cannabis use by employees and
prospective employees.184
B. Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use
Cities have flexibility to regulate cannabis
cultivation for personal use. Cities may reasonably
regulate, but not ban, indoor cannabis cultivation
in a private residence for personal use. Cities
may regulate or ban outdoor cannabis cultivation
for personal use on the grounds of a private
residence.185 Personal use cannabis cultivation in a
181 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.3.
182 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.1, subd. (a).
183 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.45, subd. (g).
184 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.45, subd. (f).

Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11362.1, subd. (a)(3), 11362.2.
185 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (b).
186 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (b)(2).
187 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (b)(5).
188 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (a)(2).
189 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (a)(3).
190 Harris v. City of Fontana (Super. Ct. San Bernardino County, 2018, No. CIVDS 1710586). 191 Id. at p. 7.
192 Id. at pp. 7-9.
fully enclosed, secure, accessory structure on the
grounds of a private residence may be reasonably
regulated, but not banned.186 AUMA defines
“private residence” as “a house, an apartment unit,
a mobile home, or other similar dwelling.”187
State law limits personal cannabis cultivation to
six plants, and requires that the plants and any
cannabis produced by the plants, exceeding the
allowable 28.5 grams, be stored in a locked space
not visible from a public place.188 Only six plants
may be cultivated in or on the grounds of a private
residence at one time.189
Within these parameters, cities may consider
additional, reasonable regulations of cannabis
cultivation for personal use. No appellate court has
yet opined on the permissible scope of “reasonable
regulations.” To date, only one trial court has
ruled on a challenge to municipal regulation of
personal cannabis cultivation.190 The court found
that the local regulations outlining permit eligibility requirements were “arbitrary and capricious”
because they excluded “certain persons from
doing what state law specifically allows them to
do,” i.e. cultivate six cannabis plants within a single residence.191 Additionally, the court found the local
regulations on permitting, use of residential space,
and inspections were unreasonable because they
did not have a nexus to the activity being regulated,
personal cultivation of six cannabis plants.192 Until
appellate judicial guidance is provided, cities may
PG CC 2/16/22
300 of 470
| 27 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
consider adopting reasonable, rationally-related
public health, safety, and welfare regulations
furthering their Constitutional police powers and
the authority given by the voters in AUMA.193
PRACTICE TIP: In crafting reasonable
regulations on personal cannabis
cultivation, cities should consider the
breadth and scope of desired regulations,
being careful to establish the rational
connection to regulating personal cultivation
of small amounts of cannabis plants.

Regulations may require coordination
with multiple city departments regarding
permitting, permissible locations for
personal cultivation, compliance with safety
codes and standards, accessory structure
requirements, environmental standards, as
well as safety and nuisance standards, and
outdoor inspections. Regulatory needs will
vary according to the environment and the
will of each city. Cities should be mindful
193 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7; City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc., (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 737-38; Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.2, subd. (b).
194 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26200, 26201. See also Proposition 64, Section 3, subds. (c), (d) (Nov. 9, 2016), available at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/ initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf.
195 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26201.
of the types of regulations found to be
unreasonable in Harris v. City of Fontana
when determining how best to approach this
type of regulation.

Until the permissible scope of reasonable local
regulation is delimited by a published court opinion,
restrained regulations that do not conflict with
the broad permission granted to individuals by
AUMA are likely to be upheld. Aggressive local
regulations, such as those limiting who can obtain
a permit or requiring payment of any delinquent,
preexisting administrative citation fines, may be at a
greater risk of being struck down.

PRACTICE TIP: Given the lack of court
guidance on this issue, a severability clause
should be included in any local regulatory
ordinance imposing regulations of cannabis
cultivation for personal use.

III. REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL
CANNABIS ACTIVITY
Cities may prohibit or regulate commercial cannabis
activity within their jurisdictions.194 The scope and
type of regulation may vary depending on the
nature and character of the city and the will of its
residents. A city may allow and regulate all types of
cannabis businesses, only certain types of cannabis
businesses, or may ban any or all commercial
cannabis activity. Local regulations may be stricter
than the minimum state standards.195 One of the
main tenets of AUMA was local control—cities that
want to permit commercial cannabis activity may
PG CC 2/16/22
301 of 470
| 28 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
do so on their own terms and cities that want to
prohibit these uses are free to do so as well.

Commercial cannabis activity is also regulated
extensively by state law, which includes a detailed
licensing scheme. Generally, proof of local
authorization is required before an applicant may
be issued a state license for commercial cannabis
activity.196 Cities are required to provide copies
of commercial cannabis ordinances to the state,
along with a contact person who can verify local
compliance by an applicant.197 The local jurisdiction
must provide a response to an inquiry by the
state licensing agency (now consolidated under
the Department of Cannabis Control) within 60
business days, or the licensing authority will make
a rebuttable presumption that the application
complies with local regulations.198
A. Land Use Considerations
Prior to the adoption of AUMA and MAUCRSA,
many cities used planning and zoning regulations
to prohibit or regulate cannabis activity. The
California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in
City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health &
Wellness Center, Inc.199 that the CUA and MMPA do
not preempt local ordinances that completely and
permanently ban medicinal cannabis facilities.200
In reaching this conclusion, the court recognized
that the local police power, which derives from
California Constitution, article XI, § 7, “includes
196 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (d).
197 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (f)-(g).
198 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (g)(2)(D)-(F).
199 (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729 (hereinafter Inland Empire).
200 Only medical cannabis was authorized at the time of this case. 201 Inland Empire, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 738.
202 Id. at p. 742.
203 Id. at p. 762.
204 Id. at p. 759 (italics in original).
205 (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 975 (hereinafter Maral).
206 Id. at 984.
207 Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.
broad authority to determine, for purposes of
public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate
uses of land within a local jurisdiction’s borders,
and preemption by state law is not lightly
presumed.”201 The court concluded that the
CUA and MMPA neither expressly nor impliedly
preempt local zoning authority.202 Instead,
the CUA and MMPA both have a very limited
and specific reach.203 Inland Empire reasoned
that the MMPA immunizes only “the cooperative
or collective cultivation and distribution of medical
marijuana by and to qualified patients and their
designated caregivers from prohibitions that would
otherwise apply under state law” but does “not
thereby mandate that local governments authorize,
allow, or accommodate the existence of such
facilities.”204
Subsequently, the court in Maral v.

City of Live Oak205 held that neither
the CUA nor MMPA preempts a city’s police power
to prohibit medicinal cannabis cultivation. In so
holding, the Maral court relied heavily on the
reasoning and analysis of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Inland Empire. Maral confirmed
that there is “no right—and certainly no
constitutional right—to cultivate medical
marijuana.”206 The Maral plaintiffs made several
other arguments against a cultivation ban,
including claims of violation of equal protection
of disabled persons, procedural and Ralph M.

Brown Act207 “irregularities” in the adoption of
PG CC 2/16/22
302 of 470
| 29 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
the ordinance, and “negative impact” to “longcherished property rights.” The court rejected all of these claims as “undeveloped” arguments, which
the court felt it did not need to address.208
In Kirby v. County of Fresno209 the court upheld
the part of a county ordinance banning medicinal
cannabis dispensaries and banning the personal
cultivation or storage of medicinal cannabis within
the county. The court also upheld a component
of the ordinance that limited the use of medicinal
cannabis to qualified patients at their personal
residences only. In reaching these holdings, the
court relied on Inland Empire and Maral, and it
also conducted an independent analysis of the
text of the CUA and MMPA. The court found there
is no right to cultivate medicinal cannabis and
that municipalities may enact land use regulations
restricting or banning cultivation. The court
further concluded that a patient does not have
a right to obtain or use medicinal cannabis but
that the CUA and MMPA provide a defense to
possession or use when a person is faced with
arrest or criminal prosecution. However, the court
struck down the criminal penalty portions of the
county ordinance, finding that the component of
the ordinance making its violations a misdemeanor
was preempted by California’s extensive statutory
scheme relating to cannabis.

Together, Inland Empire, Maral, and Kirby supported
a municipality’s authority to regulate or to ban both
medicinal cannabis dispensaries and medicinal
cannabis cultivation pre-AUMA (a concept that
is continued in AUMA and MAUCRSA). These
208 Maral, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 984.
209 (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 940 (hereinafter Kirby).
210 People v. Ahmed (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 136, 143.
211 (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861.
212 (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 704.
213 (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1188.
214 (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1534.
215 (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068.
principles do not abrogate the medicinal cannabis
defense in a prosecution under state criminal law,
however, as local land use authority cannot nullify a
statutory defense to violations of state law.210
In addition to Inland Empire, Maral, and Kirby, the
following opinions have upheld local zoning bans or
restrictions on medicinal cannabis establishments:
◆ County of Los Angeles v. Hill211 rejected a
claim that the CUA and MMPA preempted
a conditional use permit requirement and
locational restrictions for medicinal cannabis
dispensaries;
◆ Browne v. County of Tehama212 upheld a
rural county ordinance regulating cannabis
cultivation;
◆ County of Tulare v. Nunes213 upheld a
zoning ordinance that restricted the location
of medicinal cannabis collectives and
cooperatives; ruling that limitations on the
quantity of cultivation do not render an
ordinance unconstitutional in a context other
than criminal prosecution;
◆ Conejo Wellness Ctr., Inc. v. City of Agoura
Hills214 held that neither the CUA nor the
MMPA preempted a local ban on medicinal
cannabis dispensaries; and
◆ City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba215 affirmed
summary judgment against a medicinal
cannabis dispensary and held that a dispensary
PG CC 2/16/22
303 of 470
| 30 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
was not a listed use in the city’s planning
ordinance and thus was presumptively banned;
the court rejected the claim that a dispensary
fell within preexisting land use classifications
for personal services, retail sales, and
pharmacies and medical supplies.

In addition, many medicinal cannabis advocates
have unsuccessfully challenged local bans,
regulations, and permitting schemes on equal
protection, due process, and other constitutional
grounds.216
In Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles217
the court found that an initiative measure banning
medicinal cannabis businesses did not have
to comply with either (1) the state’s minimal
procedural requirements for zoning ordinances
in Government Code section 65804 (which requires
compliance with the public hearing requirements of
Government Code section 65854) or (2) the city’s
charter requirements for passage of an ordinance
(because it was passed by the electorate and not
by the city council). The measure also provided
explicit immunity from prosecution of nuisance
violations for medicinal cannabis businesses that
fell within certain limited categories and complied
with a set of regulations. The court held that the
measure did not unlawfully grant, in violation
of substantive and procedural requirements, a
variance or a conditional use permit, nor did the
initiative grant any type of land use right; it merely
provided limited immunity under certain conditions.
216 Maral, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 (rejecting various constitutional challenges to city’s cultivation ban); County of Tulare v. Nunes, supra, 215 Cal.

App.4th at p. 1204 (county’s public safety concerns constituted rational basis for differential treatment of medical cannabis dispensaries); Conejo Wellness Ctr., Inc. supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1560 (rejecting substantive due process, procedural due process, and right to privacy challenges to dispensary ban); 420 Caregivers, LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2012) 219 Cal.App.4th 1316 (rejecting due process and right to privacy challenges to ordinance restricting medical cannabis dispensaries); and County of Los Angeles v. Hill 192 Cal.App.4th at 874 (zoning requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries did not violate Equal Protection Clause because dispensaries created unique public safety concerns and were not similarly situated to pharmacies). See also The Kind & Compassionate v. City of Long Beach (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 116 (ban on dispensaries did not violate state or federal laws protecting disabled persons, did not constitute civil rights violation under 42 USC §1983, and did not violate various state tort laws). 217 (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1029.
218 Safe Life Caregivers v City of Los Angeles, surpa, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1045-1049.

Finally, the court reviewed the MMRSA and held
that it did not preempt local regulation.218
NOTE: It is important to remember that all of the
foregoing cases arose prior to the adoption of
AUMA and MAUCRSA, and accordingly, some of
the holdings may be affected. Under MAUCRSA,
cities may no longer prohibit indoor personal
cultivation, although it may impose reasonable
restrictions. See Part 3, Section II of this Guide
regarding Regulation of Cannabis-Related Personal
Conduct. Nevertheless, these cases illustrate the
evolution of local land use and regulatory authority
for cannabis uses in California, which ultimately
became a critical element of AUMA. These cases
also discuss many relevant topics that are helpful
to practitioners, including local police power,
preemption, zoning ordinance adoption, disabled
access, conflicts of law, torts, as well as many
PG CC 2/16/22
304 of 470
| 31 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
cannabis-specific topics. Accordingly, this body of
case law remains relevant and helpful, even after
adoption of AUMA.

With the adoption of both AUMA and MAUCRSA,
cities’ ability to adopt land use ordinances and
other business license ordinances to regulate
both medicinal and adult-use cannabis uses was
reaffirmed.219 In City of Vallejo v. NCORP4,
220
the court recognized that both prior state law
and AUMA do not preempt cities ability to allow,
restrict, limit, or prohibit commercial cannabis
land uses, and upheld the city’s ordinance limiting
allowed medicinal cannabis dispensaries to
those that previously paid local business taxes.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, practitioners should
familiarize themselves with the following sections
from MAUCRSA that affect local regulation of
cannabis uses:
◆ Personal cannabis cultivation: Cities may
reasonably regulate but may not prohibit
personal cultivation. See Local Regulation of
Cannabis Cultivation for Personal Use above.
◆ Cannabis consumption lounges: In addition
to any local regulations, cannabis consumption
lounges must meet certain state criteria related
to access and ensuring consumption is not
visible from public areas.221
◆ Buffer Zone: Cannabis dispensaries may not
be located within 600 feet of schools, youth
centers, and day care centers, unless a city
has adopted a local ordinance providing
otherwise.222
219 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (a)-(b).
220 (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1078.
221 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (g).
222 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054, subd. (b). Cf. Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.768. 223 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200.
224 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (e).
◆ Delivery: Cities can ban or regulate deliveries
within their borders.223 However, cities cannot
prevent a delivery service from using public
roads to pass through its jurisdiction.224
B. Local Ordinances

1. Distinguishing Between Business and Land
Use Regulation
Whether cities should adopt a land use ordinance
or a business license ordinance, or both, to
regulate cannabis uses and activities depends
upon the goals the city is trying to achieve. If a city’s goal is to address land use impacts associated with
cannabis uses, such as limiting the location or odor,
then the city will need to follow both state and local
law for adopting ordinances that regulate the land
use impacts of cannabis activities. For example,
local operating regulations may encompass
industry-specific standards, public safety risks,
quality of life concerns, and other factors unique to
the locale. If a city’s goal is to address the concerns of the business aspect of cannabis activities,
such as who may engage in commercial cannabis
activities, then the city may regulate the cannabis
activity through its general police powers. For
example, cities may consider permit or business
license requirements, including objective standards
for applications, approvals, denials, renewals, and
licensing revocations, as well terms of security,
odor, inspections, notices of violations, levels of
penalties, and an appeals process.

PG CC 2/16/22
305 of 470
| 32 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
PRACTICE TIP: A city that incorporates
most regulatory provisions in the business
regulations should still identify in its zoning
ordinance the zones where the various
commercial cannabis uses are permitted.

PRACTICE TIP: Many cities historically
regulated cannabis operations through
conditional use permits authorized under
the zoning ordinance. The conditional use
permit gave cities the ability to impose
conditions on the use to prevent any
secondary impacts. Remember that a
conditional use permit runs with the land
and is not tied to a particular operator.

A regulatory business license tied to the
operator should be required in cities that
want to maintain control of who operates a
commercial cannabis business.

2. California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)
In adopting an ordinance that regulates or
prohibits cannabis uses, cities should consider the
application of the California Environmental Quality
Act225 (CEQA). Depending upon the circumstances,
the adoption of these types of ordinances may be
supported by a finding that the ordinance is either
not a “project” under CEQA or exempt from CEQA.

Otherwise, an environmental document may be
required.
225 Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.
226 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15060, subd. (c)(2).
227 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 1561, subd. (b)(3).
228 (2019) 7 Cal.5th 117.
229 Cf. Union of Med. Marijuana Patients v City of Upland (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1265 [ordinance banning mobile dispensaries, adopted in 2013, is not a “project” under CEQA partly because of speculative nature of plaintiffs’ claims of environmental consequences].

Bus. and Prof. Code § 26055(h).

Bus. and Prof. Code § 26055(h).
230 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (h).
231 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055, subd. (h).

Cannabis regulations are not a “project” subject
to CEQA if they “will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change
in the environment”226 or if they will not have
“the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment.”227 However, in Union of Med.

Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego,
228 the
California Supreme Court held that an ordinance
amending zoning regulations to allow up to four
medicinal cannabis dispensaries in each council
district at specific locations with a conditional use
permit qualifies as a “project” under CEQA.229
The Court found that the regulations could,
potentially, result in indirect physical changes in
the environment by permitting the establishment of
a sizeable number of a new type of business that
could foreseeably result in new retail construction
to accommodate the businesses and by changing
patterns of vehicle traffic.

MAUCRSA had provided a statutory exemption for
“the adoption of an ordinance, rule, or regulation
by a local jurisdiction that requires discretionary
review and approval of permits, licenses, or other
authorizations to engage in commercial cannabis
activity.”230 However, that exemption expired by
operation of law on June 30, 2021.231
If an ordinance is subject to CEQA, and not exempt,
an environmental document may be required. The
scope of the environmental review will depend on
the type of activity the city is authorizing under the
ordinance. By way of example, cultivation activities
can require analysis into water use, pesticide use,
PG CC 2/16/22
306 of 470
| 33 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
drainage, and other environmental considerations.

Retail operations, on the other hand, may be more
similar to all other permitted retail operations in the city’s commercial zones and may not generate any
unusual impacts to the environment.

3. Social Equity Issues
In adopting local ordinances, cities may also want
to consider social equity concerns. The California
Legislature has found that cannabis prohibition
has had a “devastating impact on communities
across California,” with individuals who have
cannabis convictions encountering greater
difficulties in accessing capital, business space,
technical support, and regulatory compliance
assistance.232 Furthermore, these impacts from
cannabis convictions have had a disproportionate
impact on Black and Latinx people, even though
people of all races used or sold cannabis at the
same rates during the cannabis prohibition.233
The California Cannabis Equity Act of 2018234 is
intended to ameliorate these adverse impacts
by providing assistance to those individuals and
communities that have been negatively impacted.

The Act was amended in July 2021 when the three
state licensing agencies were consolidated under
the DCC. Under the Act, the DCC may provide
technical assistance for local equity programs,
which includes providing grant funding to eligible
local jurisdictions upon appropriation of funds by
the Legislature, through the Governor’s Office of
Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz).235
Any local jurisdiction that allows for commercial
cannabis activity may implement a local equity
232 Sen. Bill 1294 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 2, subd. (b). 233 Sen. Bill 1294 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) § 2, subd. (c). 234 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26240 et seq.
235 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26242, subd. (a).
236 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26240, subd. (e).
237 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26240, subd. (b).
238 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26246, subd. (b). The list is available at https://cannabis.ca.gov/local-equity-information/. program. A “local equity program” is defined as
“a program adopted by a local jurisdiction that
focuses on inclusion and support of individuals and
communities in California’s cannabis industry who
are linked to populations or neighborhoods that
were negatively or disproportionately impacted
by cannabis criminalization as evidenced by
the local jurisdiction’s equity assessment.”236 An
“equity assessment” may include a review of rates
related to local cannabis arrests and convictions,
consideration of how the local jurisdiction’s
cannabis policies have impacted communities
and populations within its jurisdiction, and
other information of how the War on Drugs has
impacted communities within its jurisdictions.237
First the Bureau, and now the DCC, publishes a
list of local jurisdictions that have adopted local
equity programs and a list of model local equity
ordinances developed by advocacy groups and
experts.238 Although the California Cannabis Equity
Act of 2018 provides that the state may assist
local jurisdictions with the implementation of local
equity programs, a local jurisdiction allowing for
cannabis-related use and activities is not required
to implement a local equity program.

PG CC 2/16/22
307 of 470
| 34 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
PRACTICE TIP: It is important to remember
that local equity programs are intended
to mitigate the adverse impacts caused
by a city’s cannabis-related policies. For
example, a city that prohibited all cannabisrelated use and activities until AUMA was passed will have different social equity
considerations compared to a city that
allowed for uses and activities related to
medicinal cannabis following the adoption
of Proposition 215. Practitioners should be
mindful of their own city’s historic practices
when researching and borrowing from other
cities’ social equity programs.

PRACTICE TIP: Equity programs can be
quite varied. In jurisdictions that have meritbased or competitive business selection processes, some cities have given more
weight to, or otherwise favored, applicants
in communities that have been historically
239 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (l).; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 8000, subd. (h). 240 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26060, subd. (a).
241 “Canopy” is the area of a cultivation site containing mature plants, measured in square feet, including the surface area of any shelving system for mature plants. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §8000, subd. (f).)
and disproportionately impacted by the
criminalization of cannabis activities. Cities
can also consider creating a more even
playing field in the selection process by
allowing potential operators to participate in
a selection process before having secured a
physical location for the business. For many,
the cost of securing and leasing a business
location and holding that location for many
months during a long selection process can
be too expensive. This leaves only wellcapitalized and well-established businesses able to compete for the licenses, which
can in turn perpetuate the historical social
inequities that AUMA aimed to reverse.

Social equity can come in many forms and
can be incorporated into many aspects of a
business selection process.

C. Commercial Cannabis Cultivation
Commercial cannabis cultivation is regulated
statewide through Chapter 6 of Division 10 of
the Business and Professions Code, and through
regulations originally promulgated by the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in
California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 8,
Chapter 1. Cultivation is defined as “any activity
involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying,
curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis.”239
Cultivation may occur in a variety of ways,
including indoor, outdoor, mixed light, nursery,
and special cottage cultivation operations, each
subject to specific state licensing and regulatory
requirements.240 The type of commercial cultivation
license required generally depends on the square
footage of the canopy size241 and the type of light
PG CC 2/16/22
308 of 470
| 35 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
used in cultivation.242 State law prohibits large
cultivation site licenses until January 1, 2023.243
Large sites include those greater than one acre
for outdoor sites with no artificial light, indoor sites using exclusively artificial light greater than 22,000
square feet, and mixed light sites greater than
22,000 square feet.244
Commercial cultivators are subject to strict,
statewide, water supply and irrigation
requirements,245 as well as restrictions on marketing
cannabis as organic and properly designating
the county of origin.246 State license applicants
must submit a diagram of the property proposed
for cultivation, a detailed cultivation plan, a pest
management and pesticide plan, and a cannabis
waste plan.247 Additionally, state-licensed cannabis
cultivators must comply with weighing, packaging,
labeling, and track and trace regulations.248
Cities have broad discretionary authority in the
regulation of commercial cannabis cultivation.

Accordingly, cities may regulate local licensing,
traditional public safety measures, environmental
measures, and zoning and land use and
development standard regulations (lighting,
hours of operation, noise, odor, etc.). Some
areas of particular regulation are identified in
state law, including land conversion, building
and fire standards, grading, electricity, water
242 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26061; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §§ 8200, 8201. 243 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26061, subd. (c).
244 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26061, subd. (c). But note, CDFA by implication, allows a licensee to hold multiple licenses for small operations for a single site but only one medium license for a single site. For example, a licensee wishing to cultivate 82,000 square feet indoors may hold nine Type 2A licenses. (See Cal. Code Regs, tit. 3, § 8209.) The California Growers Association filed suit in 2018 to challenge this regulation but dropped the lawsuit in 2019. https:// mjbizdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/CGA-suit-over-license-stacking-dismissed.pdf. 245 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 2060.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, § 8107. 246 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26062.5, 26063.
247 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §§ 8105, 8106, 8108, 8307, 8308. 248 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 3, §§ 8212, 8213, 8402–8406.
249 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26066.
250 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (i); Health & Saf. Code, § 11018.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, § 40100, subd. (j). 251 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26130, subd. (a); Cal. Code Regs., tit.17, § 40118. 252 See generally, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 40200–40272, 40300–40505, 40550. usage and quality, habitat protection, and other
environmental concerns.249 Cities may enact further
regulations to ameliorate odors, excessive noise,
unsanitary conditions, pesticide exposure, security
concerns, including background checks, and local
environmental impacts.

D. Commercial Cannabis Manufacturing
Commercial cannabis manufacturing is regulated
in state law by Chapter 13 of Division 10 of the
Business and Professions Code, and by California
Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter

13. Cannabis manufacturers create “cannabis
products,” defined as “cannabis that has undergone
a process whereby the plant material has been
transformed into a concentrate, including, but
not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an
edible or topical product containing cannabis or
concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.”250
Cannabis manufacturers must obtain a state
license, the type of which depends, in part,
on whether the manufacturer uses volatile
solvents, non-volatile solvents, or no solvents.251
Manufacturers are subject to detailed state
regulatory requirements, including:252
◆ Security regulations
PG CC 2/16/22
309 of 470
| 36 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
◆ Extraction regulations253
◆ Product quality control regulations
◆ Grounds, building, and premises regulations
designed to ensure quality control and safety
◆ Equipment regulations
◆ Personnel procedures promoting cleanliness
◆ Raw material safety regulations
◆ Manufacturing protocols
◆ Record keeping
◆ Labeling and packaging regulations
◆ Inspection requirements
Like other commercial cannabis businesses,
cannabis manufacturers must comply with all local
ordinances and regulations in order to obtain
a state license.254 In addition to land use and
zoning requirements, cities may enact health,
safety, and welfare regulations for local cannabis
manufacturers.255 Such regulations may include,
for example, (1) land use and zoning regulation
imposition of development standards; (2) business
permits or licenses; (3) regulatory inspections; (4)
a limit on the number of permitted manufacturing
businesses (5) restricted hours of operation;
(6) proof of landlord authorization; (7) notice to
surrounding property owners; (8) insurance and
indemnity; (9) facility and equipment requirements;
253 Notably, no volatile solvent cannabis extraction or closed loop extraction may occur in an area zoned as residential. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 40222, subd. (c), 40225, subd. (g).)
254 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055.
255 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26200, 26201; Proposition 64, Section 3, subd. (c), (d) (Nov. 9, 2016), available at: https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/ pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf.
256 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §40118.
(10) safety requirements; (11) specific requirements
on the use of compressed gases and other
manufacturing techniques; (12) building and
perimeter security requirements; (13) background
checks that go above and beyond that required
under state law; and (14) signage requirements
or restrictions. Cities may also consider different
requirements for manufacturers operating under
different types of state licenses, calculated to
apply the most stringent regulations to those
manufacturing operations posing the greatest
public safety risk.

There are several different manufacturing license
types.256 For example, Type N is for manufacturers
that produce cannabis products, other than
extracts or concentrates that are produced through
extraction. As an example, a Type N license can be
for a manufacturer who merely uses an alreadyproduced extract and infuses the extract into a food or beverage.

PG CC 2/16/22
310 of 470
| 37 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
PRACTICE TIP: “Manufacturing” with a Type
N Manufacturing license is somewhat of a
misnomer and can be confusing to city staff
or city councilmembers. Technically, merely
mixing an extract into a food or beverage
is considered “manufacturing.” Therefore,
it may be important for cities to distinguish
between manufacturers who are merely
infusing products (taking a cannabis extract
and mixing in brownie mix, for example), and
those who are using a more comprehensive
manufacturing operation to extract the
THC from other cannabinoids. Due to the
fact that infusion may have fewer impacts
on surrounding areas, cities can consider
allowing infusion in more populated zones,
like general commercial districts, and
extraction in less populated zones, like
industrial districts.

E. Commercial Cannabis Testing
Commercial cannabis and cannabis products are
subject to state-imposed testing requirements,
and shall not be sold commercially without being
tested by a licensed laboratory.257 A person that
holds a state testing laboratory license is prohibited
from obtaining a license for any other commercial
cannabis activity, and is prohibited from employing
anyone who is also employed by another licensee
that does not hold a state testing laboratory
license.258
257 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26100, subd. (a).
258 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26053, subd. (b).
259 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 5701, 5702, 5712–5725. 260 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5726.
261 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5729–5730.
262 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5733–5734.
263 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5735.

All cannabis testing laboratories must be certified
to test for a variety of substances in cannabis and
cannabis products, and must follow accepted
laboratory testing guidelines.259 Testing laboratories
must provide a certificate of analysis for each
representative cannabis sample analyzed,260 and
are responsible for quality assurance,261 proficiency
testing,262 and audits.263
In addition to traditional land use and zoning
requirements, cities may consider the following
when regulating cannabis testing laboratories:
business permits, regulatory inspections, notice
to surrounding property owners, landlord
authorization, insurance and indemnity, proof of
all laboratory certifications and accreditations,
building and perimeter security requirements,
operating procedures and security requirements
for delivery of cannabis and cannabis products for
testing, restricted hours of operation or restricted
hours for accepting cannabis deliveries for testing,
background checks, and signage requirements or
restrictions.

PRACTICE TIP: Cities may want to consider
allowing testing facilities in various zones
within their city, as secondary effects may
be minimal. The use functions much like any
other medicinal testing facility or laboratory.

F. Commercial Cannabis Distribution
Distribution plays a vital role in the commercial
cannabis system. Distribution is defined as the
PG CC 2/16/22
311 of 470
| 38 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
“procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and
cannabis products between licensees.”264
A distributor can hold a Type 11265 or Type 13
license.266 A Type 11 license allows a distributor
to transport cannabis between licensed cannabis
premises; to package, re-package, label, and
re-label cannabis for retail sale; transport a
cannabis goods batch to a testing lab while also
ensuring the proper retrieval and documentation
of batch samples;267 transfer untested cannabis
goods, or untested immature cannabis plants or
seeds to specified licenses; and to store certain
packaged cannabis goods.268 A Type 13 license
allows a distributor to engage in transport only.269
In addition, a microbusiness (Type 12 license) can
act as a distributor for self-distribution of its own
commercial cannabis products.270
All distributors must comply with minimum security
and transportation safety requirements for the
commercial distribution of cannabis and cannabis
products, which relate to the following:
◆ Comprehensive general liability insurance;
◆ Restrictions on who may be a driver or
passenger in the transport vehicle;
◆ Restrictions on the vehicle itself — each vehicle
must have a valid motor carrier permit pursuant
to Vehicle Code section 34620;
264 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (r).
265 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26050, subd. (a)(19)
266 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5315.
267 If the batch passes, the distributor may transport the cannabis good to a licensed retailed or a licensed distributor. However, if the batch fails and cannot be remediated, the distributor must destroy the batch. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, §5306(e).) 268 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, §§ 5300–5314.
269 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5315.
270 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070, subd. (a)(3)(A).
271 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 5300–5315; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070. 272 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055.
273 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26080, subd. (b).
274 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055.
◆ Inventory accounting;
◆ Records of tax payments, testing, etc.; and
◆ Shipping manifest.271
In addition to state law, a distributor must also
comply with any local ordinances.272 However, a
city cannot prevent the transportation of cannabis
or cannabis products on public roads by a
licensee acting in compliance with Division 10 of
the Business and Professions Code.273 Therefore,
a city cannot prevent a distributor’s transport
vehicle from traveling through its jurisdiction on
public roads simply because the distributor is
transporting cannabis products, but can regulate
or ban distribution facilities within its boundaries.274 Some types of regulations that a city may adopt
include zoning regulations to ensure that the
distribution facilities are located in a commercial/
industrial center, as well as health and safety
regulations relating to security, vehicle, and storage
requirements.

G. Commercial Cannabis Retail
Commercial cannabis retail operations are
regulated statewide through Chapter 7 of Division
10 of the Business and Professions Code, and
through regulations in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 16, Division 42.

PG CC 2/16/22
312 of 470
| 39 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
A commercial cannabis business that engages
in the retail sale and delivery of cannabis or
cannabis products to customers must obtain a state
“Retailer” license, which is a Type 10 license.275
The term retailer includes both medicinal retailers
as well as adult-use retailers. A license may be an
A-designation (for adult-use) or an M-designation
(for medicinal). Dispensaries that previously
operated under the collective or cooperative
model for medicinal cannabis have been phased
out under the regulatory scheme promulgated
by MAUCRSA.276 State law provides two distinct
types of retailers: storefront (formerly known
as “dispensaries”) and non-storefront. Each is
discussed further below.

All retailers must comply with minimum security
and transportation safety requirements for the
commercial delivery of cannabis and cannabis
products established in the California Code of
Regulations, Title 16, Division 42 as well as those
requirements identified in Division 10 of the
Business and Professions Code.277
A retailer must have a licensed premises, which is a
physical location from which commercial cannabis
activities are conducted, however, a retailer’s
premises may be closed to the public, such that the
retailer conducts sales exclusively by delivery.278
All licensed retail premises must not be located
within a 600-foot radius of a school, day care
center, or youth center that is in existence at
the time the license is issued, unless a licensing
275 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055.
276 Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.775.
277 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5300 et seq.; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070. 278 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070, subd. (a)(1).
279 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26054, subd. (b).
280 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 5400–5427.
281 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26055.
282 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. See also City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 737–38. authority or a local jurisdiction specifies a different radius.279

1. Storefront Retail (Formerly,
“Dispensaries”)
The Bureau promulgated regulations for all
retailers, which include a variety of requirements
such as security, packaging, labeling, and operation
of a retail business.280 Local jurisdictions may
also regulate or prohibit retail businesses.281
Like other commercial cannabis activity, a local
jurisdiction may regulate commercial cannabis retail
businesses within its jurisdiction through its police
power.282
PG CC 2/16/22
313 of 470
| 40 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
PRACTICE TIP: For retail facilities, many
cities have adopted zoning regulations to
identify appropriate commercial zones,
development standards, and limitations
on the number of retail facilities per zone.

In addition to zoning regulations, a city
may adopt regulations pertaining to retail
operations to address health and safety
concerns. Some examples of regulations
that address health and safety concerns
include limiting hours of operation, security
requirements, storage, and restrictions on
customer accessibility.

PRACTICE TIP: Since cannabis businesses
often operate as cash-based businesses,
security is a critical component of successful
retail cannabis regulations. Cannabis
products can also create an odor. In
commercial districts, regulations should be
in place to ensure that odor does not seep
into adjacent commercial tenant spaces.

2. Consumption Lounges
Some store-front retailers may want to offer
consumption lounges where the consumer may
ingest, smoke, or vape the cannabis products on
site. There is no separate state license category
for on-site consumption. Business and Professions
Code section 26200, subdivision (g) provides that,
notwithstanding Health and Safety Code section
1362.3, subdivision (a), a local jurisdiction may
allow for the smoking, vaporizing, and ingesting
of cannabis or cannabis products on the premises
of a retailer or microbusiness licensed under this
division, if all of the following are met:
283 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5411, subds. (b) and (c). a. Access to the area where cannabis
consumption is allowed is restricted to persons
21 years of age and older;
b. Cannabis consumption is not visible from any
public place or nonage-restricted area; and
c. Sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco is
not allowed on the premises.

A store-front retailer that offers consumption
on site is different from a temporary cannabis
event licensee that offers consumption pursuant
to California Code of Regulations section 5603.

However, the above-identified criteria apply to both
types of consumption, in addition to other state and
local regulations relating to retailers and temporary
cannabis events.

PRACTICE TIP: Consumption lounges are
increasing in popularity, as they offer the
public a safe place to consume or smoke
cannabis and allow retail operators an
opportunity to distinguish themselves from
other retailers. As interest in consumption
lounges increase, it is important to make
sure that city regulations clearly indicate
whether on-site consumption is allowed and
under what conditions.

3. Prohibition on Free Cannabis Goods
A licensed retailer is prohibited from providing free
cannabis goods to any person. However, a licensee
who holds an M-Retailer license, an M-Retailer Nonstorefront license, or an M-Microbusiness license that is authorized for retail sales may provide free
medicinal cannabis goods, or donate cannabis
goods and the use of equipment, if certain criteria
are met.283 As of July 12, 2021, trade samples
PG CC 2/16/22
314 of 470
| 41 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
between licensees may be permitted under new
regulations.284

4. Non-Storefront Retail
A non-storefront retailer licensee is authorized to
conduct retail sales exclusively by delivery.285 A
non-storefront retailer is required to comply with
all regulations relating to retail storefronts, except
for those provisions relating to public access to the
licensed premises and the retail area, as the nonstorefront retail facility is closed to the public.286

5. Cannabis Deliveries
Licensed store-front retailers, non-storefront
retailers, and microbusinesses can engage in
delivery of cannabis and cannabis products.287
Deliveries are included as a type of commercial
cannabis activity under Business and Professions
Code section 26070.5.

The Bureau adopted minimum security and
transportation safety requirements for the
commercial delivery of cannabis and cannabis
products.288 These regulations specify, among
other things, requirements for delivery employees,
technological platforms for delivery, authorized
delivery locations, delivery vehicle requirements,
allowed cannabis goods carried during delivery,
delivery request receipts, and delivery routes.
284 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26153.1.
285 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5414.
286 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5414; Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26012, 26070. 287 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (a).
288 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26070; 16 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 5400-5427. 289 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5417, subd. (a).
290 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5417, subd. (b).
291 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5417, subd. (d).
292 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5417, subd. (f).
293 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5418, subd. (a).
294 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, §§ 5415, subd. (b); 5416, subds. (a) and (c). 295 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200.
296 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26090, subd. (e).

Some general requirements relating to the delivery
vehicle include, but are not limited to, the following:
the vehicle cannot have any markings or other
indications on the exterior that can indicate it
is used for cannabis delivery;289 the cannabis
goods need to be locked in a fully enclosed box
or container that is separate from the vehicle and
secured to the vehicle;290 the delivery vehicle
needs to have a dedicated Global Positioning
System (GPS) used for the delivery vehicle only;291
and any vehicle used by a licensed retailer for
delivery is subject to inspection by the state.292
Other regulations provide that the delivery driver
cannot carry cannabis goods in the delivery vehicle
with a value in excess of $5,000 at any time.293
Additionally, the delivery driver must be at least 21
years of age, must deliver to a physical address in
California, and cannot deliver cannabis goods to
an address on publicly owned land or in a building
leased or owned by a public agency.294
Under AUMA, cities can ban or regulate deliveries
within their borders.295 However, cities cannot
prevent a delivery service from using public roads
to pass through their jurisdiction.296
On January 25, 2019, the Bureau promulgated
Regulation 5416 (d), which provides that a delivery
employee may deliver to any jurisdiction within
California provided that such delivery is conducted
in compliance with all regulations in Division 42
PG CC 2/16/22
315 of 470
| 42 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.297
Regulation 5416 (d) can arguably be interpreted to
mean that delivery of cannabis goods is authorized
in any city within California, regardless of whether
the city regulates or bans deliveries within its
borders.

However, in April 2019, a number of cities and the
County of Santa Cruz filed a complaint against the
Bureau challenging Regulation 5416 (d) and seeking
judicial declarations that, among other things, the
Bureau exceeded its authority in promulgating
Regulation 5416 (d) and has no authority to preempt
local control over commercial cannabis activities.298
In an order dated November 17, 2020, the trial court
concluded that the issue was not ripe for decision
because Regulation 5416(d) does not command
local jurisdictions to do anything or preclude them
from doing anything. Although the Bureau had
taken a contrary position in a separate lawsuit, in
this case the Bureau argued that Regulation 5416
(d) did not preempt local ordinances regulating
deliveries. Concluding that the Bureau was not
judicially estopped from arguing such a contrary
position, the trial court agreed with the Bureau that
Regulation 5416 (d) does not preempt or conflict
with any local ordinances regulating or banning
deliveries, nor does it preclude the plaintiffs from
enforcing such ordinances. As such, the matter was
not ripe for adjudication.

H. Cannabis Microbusinesses
A microbusiness is a business that engages in
multiple areas of commercial cannabis activity.
297 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5416, subd. (d).
298 Order, County of Santa Cruz v. Bureau of Cannabis Control (Super. Ct. Fresno County, 2019, No. 19CECG01224) (Nov. 17, 2020) (“With judicial estoppel principles in mind, the court wishes tonmake clear that it is persuaded by, agrees with and adopts the BCC’s argument that Regulation 5416(d) is not inconsistent with and does not preempt plaintiffs’ local ordinances regarding adult-use cannabis delivery, nor does it preclude plaintiffs from enforcing such ordinances. On the basis of that conclusion, the court finds that this matter is not ripe for adjudication, and dismisses the action as to all plaintiffs.”) 299 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5500, subd. (a).
300 Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 26001 subd. (aj); 26050, subd. (a)(20).

In order to hold a microbusiness license, a licensee
must engage in at least three of the following
commercial cannabis activities: cultivation,
manufacturing, distribution, and retail sale.299 A
microbusiness (Type 12 License) can be issued for a
microbusiness that conducts cultivation of cannabis
on an area less than 10,000 square feet and to
act as a licensed distributor, Level 1 manufacturer,
and retailer under this division, provided such
licensee can demonstrate compliance with all
requirements imposed by this division on licensed
cultivators, distributors, Level 1 manufacturers, and
retailers to the extent the licensee engages in such
activities.300
There were two different licensing authorities for a
microbusiness prior to July 2021: the Bureau and
the CDFA. With the passage of AB 141, all cannabis
licensing authority rests with the DCC. The Bureau
and the CDFA had each established a process by
which an applicant for a microbusiness license can
demonstrate compliance with all the requirements
for the activities that will be conducted under the
license.

A holder of a microbusiness license shall comply
with the following:
a. A holder of a microbusiness license engaged
in cultivation shall comply with all the rules
and requirements applicable to the cultivation
license type suitable for the cultivation
activities of the licensee.
b. A holder of a microbusiness license engaged
in manufacturing shall comply with all the rules
PG CC 2/16/22
316 of 470
| 43 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
and requirements applicable to a Manufacturer
1 license in Division 1 of Title 17 of the California
Code of Regulations.
c. A holder of a microbusiness license engaged
in distribution shall comply with all the rules
and requirements applicable to a distributor
license.
d. A holder of a microbusiness license engaged
in retail sale shall comply with all the rules and
requirements applicable to a retailer license,
or a non-storefront retailer license if retail sales
are conducted by delivery only.

All cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and
retail activities performed by a licensee under a
microbusiness license shall occur on the same
licensed premises.301 However, areas of the
licensed premises for manufacturing and cultivation
shall be separated from the distribution and retail
areas by a wall and all doors between the areas
shall remain closed when not in use.302
A microbusiness licensee must comply with all
the security rules and requirements applicable
to the corresponding license type suitable for
the activities allowed pursuant to that license.303
Suspension or revocation of a microbusiness
licensee shall affect all commercial cannabis
activities allowed pursuant to that license.304
301 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5500, subd. (d).
302 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5500, subd. (h).
303 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5500, subd. (g).
304 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, § 5500, subd. (i).
305 Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. See also Inland Empire, supra, 56 Cal. 4th at pp. 737-38. 306 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5601, subd. (d).
307 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(1); see also Cal. Code Reg. tit. 16, § 5601 subd. (f). 308 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, §§ 5601, subd. (g); 5602, subd. (f); 5603, subd. (c). 309 Bus. &. Prof. Code, § 26001, subd. (ap).

Like other commercial cannabis activities, a local
jurisdiction may regulate cannabis microbusinesses
within its jurisdiction through its police power.305
I. Temporary Cannabis Events
A temporary cannabis event is an event where
either the sale or consumption of cannabis
will occur over a short period of time, and at a
temporary location. A temporary cannabis event
cannot exceed more than 4 consecutive days.306
“A temporary cannabis event may only be held at
a county fair event, district agricultural association
event, or at another venue expressly approved
by a local jurisdiction for the purpose of holding
a temporary cannabis event.”307 The location of a
temporary cannabis event cannot be on premises
licensed for the sale of alcohol or tobacco.308
Practice Tip: “Premises” is defined as “the
designated structure or structures and land
specified in the application that is owned,
leased, or otherwise held under the control
of the applicant or licensee where the
commercial cannabis activity will be or is
conducted.”309 If the temporary cannabis
event is part of a larger event, such as a
street fair, the premises for the temporary
cannabis event may not be the same as the
premises for the larger event. Thus, alcohol
could be served at the location where the
larger event is occurring, unless a local
ordinance provides otherwise.

PG CC 2/16/22
317 of 470
| 44 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
To organize a temporary cannabis event, the
organizer must first obtain a cannabis event
organizer license and then a temporary cannabis
event license.310 The cannabis event organizer
license regulates the organizer only and is an
annual license.311 The temporary cannabis event
license regulates the event itself, including by
specifying when and where the onsite sale and
consumption of cannabis goods is authorized.312
Only a licensed retailer (whether storefront or
non-storefront) or licensed microbusiness may
sell cannabis at a temporary cannabis event.313
A licensed cannabis event organizer may not sell
cannabis goods unless the organizer also holds a
retailer, non-storefront retailer, or microbusiness
license.314 Mobile sales are prohibited at a
temporary cannabis event.315
Cannabis consumption at a temporary cannabis
event is restricted to persons at least 21 years of
age or older. Onsite consumption must comply
with any local regulations, including any smoking
pollution control regulations.316
Informational or educational cannabis events where
there are no sales or consumption of cannabis
goods do not require a state cannabis license.317
310 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, §§ 5600, subd. (a); 5601, subd. (b). 311 See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5600.
312 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5601, subd. (b).
313 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(2)(B); Cal. Code Reg. tit. 16, § 5602, subd. (c). 314 Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(2)(B); Cal. Code Reg. tit. 16, § 5600, subd. (c). 315 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5602, subd. (c)(2).
316 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § 5603, subd. (e); see also Bus. & Prof. Code, § 26200, subd. (e)(5). 317 Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, §5604.
318 Pub. L. No. 115-334 (Dec. 20, 2018) 132 Stat 4490.
319 Health & Saf. Code, § 11018, subd. (a).
320 Health & Saf. Code, § 11018.5, subd. (a); 2018 Farm Bill, § 10113. 321 Bus. Prof. Code, § 26012, subd. (a)(3).

J. Cannabidiol (CBD)
State and federal cannabidiol (CBD) law has
recently gone through some significant changes
with the passage of AUMA in California and the
Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018318
(2018 Farm Bill).

CBD can be extracted from both cannabis
and hemp plants. Cannabis CBD is extracted
from cannabis, which is generally grown and
consumed for its intoxicating properties. Cannabis
plants are those that contain more than 0.3%
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).319
Hemp CBD is sourced from industrial hemp plants,
which are grown primarily for their fiber and seeds.

Hemp plants are distinguished from cannabis plants
in that hemp must contain no more than 0.3%
THC.320
At the state level, cannabis CBD is regulated by
the CDPH, Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch
(MCSB).321 A business wishing to manufacture and
sell cannabis CBD products, including edibles, must
obtain state commercial cannabis licenses prior to
operation.

PG CC 2/16/22
318 of 470
| 45 |
Part 3 — Regulating Cannabis in Cities
Industrial hemp is expressly excluded from the
state’s definition of cannabis. For this reason, Hemp
CBD is largely unregulated. Since the hemp CBD
products in topical and ingestible forms are often
sold and marketed for health and wellness benefits,
these products fall under the purview of the
Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and CDPH, Food
& Drug Branch (FDB) as a food, drug, or cosmetic.

California law does not currently provide any
requirements for the manufacturing, processing,
or selling of non-food industrial hemp or hemp
products.

Neither cannabis nor hemp CBD products are
permitted as food additives. The FDB adopts
federal law and policy pertaining to food, drugs,
and cosmetics. The FDB concludes that CBD is, as
a Schedule I drug, prohibited in conventional foods,
drugs, and cosmetics. Therefore, the FDB found
that CBD products derived from industrial hemp are
likewise prohibited in food and drug retail within
the state – this applies to human and animal foods.

Industrial hemp CBD products are not approved in
California as a “food, food ingredient, food additive,
or dietary supplement.”
The FDB goes even further, maintaining that the
state prohibition extends to the sale of topical
creams and other products, because these items
are typically marketed for their CBD content and
therapeutic value. While enforcement has not been
aggressive, the FDA has issued warning letters
to companies selling CBD products stating that
a company, by placing an unapproved new drug
in the stream of commerce, is engaged in illegal
activity. A product is a “drug” if its intended use
is the “diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of disease,” which is largely determined
by a company’s claims about the value of active
ingredients (e.g. CBD) on its product labels and
website.

The FDA has been sympathetic to CBD health
benefit claims, and therefore has authorized clinical
investigations to substantiate claims supporting
CBD’s therapeutic value in the interests of
consumer protection and public safety. The FDA
has approved one CBD drug for the treatment of
seizures. Because the FDA has recognized CBD
as a pharmaceutical drug authorized for clinical
investigations, any commercial product containing
CBD and marketed for its therapeutic value would
need to undergo the FDA’s rigorous drug approvals
or else it will be treated by the federal government,
and by the state FDB, as an illegal, unapproved
new drug.

The law on industrial hemp cultivation is
similarly being developed. In 2019, the California
legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1409, which
relaxes industrial hemp cultivation regulations.

Pacific Grove City CouncilFebruary 16, 2022

Pacific Grove City Council
February 16, 2022