Pacific Grove City Council
March 2, 2022

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, March 2, 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 IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).

CHAMBER CAPACITY SEATING IS LIMITED AND PROVIDED ON A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED BASIS.

THE VIRTUAL MEETING 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
PGCC 3-2-2022

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER
A. Remote Teleconference - AB 361 PG 9
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Ratify 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.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Coletti

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Central Coast Community Energy Annual Update by Gabe Ruiz, Key Account Specialist Reference: Gabe Ruiz, Key Account Specialist PG 14
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.

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

3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. 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
PGCC 3-2-2022

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 February 16, 2022 City Council Special and Regular Meetings PG 38 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. Resolution in Support of Conveyance of the NOAA PG 50 Reference: Amy Tomlinson, Councilmember
Recommended Action: Approve a resolution in support of conveyance of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Property on Lighthouse Avenue to a joint venture between the Center for Ocean Art, Science, and Technology (CAOST) and Central Coast community Energy (3CE)
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

8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes for December 13, 2021 and January 10, 2022 Reference: Joe Amelio, Councilmember PG 55
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

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

9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PG 69
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. This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting. PG 71
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. Committee and Liaison Appointments PG 95
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointments of Kathleen Balke to the Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel and Chip Rerig to the Economic Development Commission both for a term ending January 31, 2024. Endorse Councilmember Coletti as Council liaison for the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Contract Amendment with Alvarez Technology Group for Information Technology Services Reference: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer PG 100 Recommended Action: Approve amendment to the contract with Alvarez Technology Group in amount not to exceed $73,500.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Veteran's Home in Monterey County PG 102
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve support letter for Veteran’s Home in Monterey County.

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

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES PGCC 3-2-2022

10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Minutes: December 21, 2021 and January 18, 2022 PG 105
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: December 6, 2021, December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022 and January 24, 2022 PG 110
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Receive minutes.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Museum Board Minutes: February 9, 2021, May 11, 2021, and November 30, 2021 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director PG 122 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 This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting. PG 133
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
PGCC 3-2-2022

B. City Council Salary and Health Benefits This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting. PG 146
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
C. Amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 23.73.050 – Time Limits and Extensions Reference: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner PG 152
Recommended Action: Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance to Amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 23.73.050 - Time Limits and Extensions, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance 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. Local Water Project Business Plan Peer Review This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting. PG 157
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
B. Hybrid Meeting Update This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk PG 220
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
C. PG Hotel Homekey Project This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor PG 242
Recommended Action: Direct City Manager to begin public outreach on a potential Homekey project no later than March 16, 2022.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 3-2-2022

D. FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation Project – Ocean View Blvd This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting. PG 272
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

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. FULL PRESENTATIONS

15. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code § 54956.8) Property: Portions of Sloat Avenue east of Dewey Avenue and west of Eardley Avenue and portions of Ocean View Boulevard
Agency Negotiator(s): Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager, Special Counsel Elizabeth Hull, Alyson Hunter, Community Development Director Negotiating Party(ies): Debra Geiler and Mike Zimmerman Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9) Pacific Grove Coast Watch and Anthony A. Ciani v. City of Pacific Grove; Pacific Grove City Council; Foursome Development Company; Paul Living Trust; CCS Pacific Grove Manager LLC., et al. PG 306
Monterey Superior Court Case No. 22CV000387
Reference: David Laredo, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation (Gov. C. §54956.9) Michael Gonzalez v. City of Pacific Grove, California; Police Chief Cathy Madalone; City Manager Ben Harvey; Does 1 -10. PG 340
U.S. District Court, Northern District Action No. 5:22-cv-1079 SVK Reference: David Laredo, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Receive report and provide direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda No. 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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Remote Teleconference - AB 361
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Ratify 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.

DISCUSSION
Governor Newsom signed AB 361 into law on September 16, 2021 to become effective on October 1, 2021. AB 361 extends the provisions of the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 and Executive Order N-35-20 and is effective until January 1, 2024. AB 361 amends sections of the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to continue to hold teleconference meetings during a state of emergency if the legislative body finds that as a result of the proclaimed state of emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

Assembly Bill 361 requires the City within 30 days of holding a virtual meeting for the first time, and every 30 days thereafter, to make findings ratifying the state of emergency.

The exact language of the Bill is as follows:

If a state of emergency remains active, or state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, in order to continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the legislative body shall, not later than 30 days after teleconferencing for the first time pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1), and every 30 days thereafter, make the following findings by majority vote:
(A) The legislative body has reconsidered the circumstances of the state of emergency. (B) Any of the following circumstances exist:
(i) The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person.
(ii) State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.

At its October 6, 2021 meeting, Council approved Resolution No. 21-029 Proclaiming a Local Emergency, Ratifying the State of Emergency Proclaimed on March 4, 2020, and Authorizing Remote PGCC 3-2-2022

Teleconference Meetings of All City Legislative Bodies for the Following 30 days in Accord wth the Ralph M. Brown Act. Resolution No. 21-029 has effect for only 30 days. The Council has ratified that resolution each month since. The Council must now renew the effect of the resolution by ratifying it again or adopting another.

Update: AB 361 expires in January 2024, so long as the Governor has declared a state of emergency.

The Governor’s Executive Order declaring a state of emergency is set to expire on March 31, 2022. It is unknown at this time whether it will be extended by a further order. A County of Monterey State of Emergency Declaration could continue the virtual meetings; however, it is unknown whether the County of Monterey will issue one. AB 361 and Executive Order N-1-22 are attached for the Council's ease of reference .

This item will continue to be added to the Council's first meeting of the month as the first item of business so long as the Governor's Executive Order is extended beyond March 31, 2022.

OPTIONS
Take no action and resume in person meetings.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Transparency, Accountability and Communication: Implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City's efforts.

Attachments
Reso
PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Central Coast Community Energy Annual Update by Gabe Ruiz, Key Account Specialist
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.

Attachments
CCC Update
PGCC 3-2-2022

Annual Member Agency
Update
City of Pacific Grove
March 02, 2022
PGCC 3-2-2022

How Does CCA Work?
“A Partnership to support shared customers”
PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

WHO WE ARE?
PGCC 3-2-2022

CCCE GOVERNANCE
Policy Board: Meets 4 Times Annually including Annual Meeting Operations Board: Meets 10 Times Annually including Annual Meeting Community Advisory Council: Meets 7 Times Annually including Annual Meeting County of
Santa Cruz
City of Santa
Cruz
City of
Watsonville
County of
Monterey
City of
Salinas
County of
San Benito
County of
Santa
Barbara
City of Santa
Maria
Coastal
Cities
Marina
Sand City*
Seaside
Del Rey
Oaks
Peninsula
Cities
Carmel
Monterey
Pacific*
Grove
Salinas
Cities
Greenfield
Gonzales
Soledad*
San Benito
Cities
Hollister*
San Juan
Bautista
Santa Cruz
Cities
Capitola*
Scotts
Valley
San Luis
Obispo
Cities
San Luis
Obispo*
Morro Bay
Paso Robles
South
County
Cities
Arroyo
Grande
Grover
Beach
Pismo*
Beach
SB County
Cities
Guadalupe
Solvang*
Buellton
SB County
Cities
Goleta
Carpinteria*
*City representative currently serving in a shared seat.

PGCC 3-2-2022

CCCE Accomplishments
Local Choice
• 3Cchoice-clean and renewable offering
• 94% enrollment
• Largest CCA service area
Economic Vitality
• $27 million – Energy programs
• Est. $50 million – Customer savings
• $25 million – Resiliency Fund
Local Support
• $1 million in Local Vendor Contracts
• 38 full time employees
• 2 offices – Monterey & San Luis Obispo
Clean Energy
• 889 MWs of Renewables – solar, wind,
geothermal
• 261 MWs of battery storage
• Pathway to 100% clean and renewable
Financial Stability
• Received “A” Rating from S&P
• Over $140 Million in Rate Stabilization
Fund
• Service and Loans Paid Off
PGCC 3-2-2022

Photo Credit: 2020 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey PGCC 3-2-2022

FAST TRACKING NEW ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
Cost of Service (COS) Rate Design
These projects will serve about 61% of CCCE’s retail load when all are online, expected in 2025.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
CCCE Long-term (LT) Contracting Status as a % of Retail Load 3CE Executed PPA % State RPS Requirement %
State RPS LT Contracting Requirement % 3CE's Procurement Policy % CCCE's Executed Contract Summary
Project Type Count Gen Capacity (MW) Storage Capacity
(MW)
Solar + Storage PPAs 9 633 201
Solar Only PPAs 1 150
Wind PPAs 1 33
Geothermal PPAs 2 73
RA Only Agreement 1 60
14 889 261
PGCC 3-2-2022

CCCE COMMITMENT TO RENEWABLE PROCUREMENT
• contracted for approximately $1 billion in long term solar plus storage contracts since 2018
• shortlisted 7 local projects through its local renewables RFP • Joined other CCAs to advance long duration storage RFP to support grid reliability through existing and new technologies
• issued an RFQ for up to 100MW of front of the meter battery storage, with the potential to island projects for increased resiliency PGCC 3-2-2022

CCCE HISTORIC RATES & COVID-19

RESPONSE
2018
3% rebate
2019
5% rebate
Jan – April
2020
7% monthly
discount
May & June
2020
50% Bill
Reduction
July 2020 –
Feb 2022
2% discount
PGCC 3-2-2022

Long-term rate adoption increases predictability and rate stability Customer choices and transparency improve with simplified customer classes
New rates increase customer rate equity throughout customer segments
New rate structure maintains competitive rates across all customer segments
https://3cenergy.org/2022-energy-choices/
GOALS OF 2022 CCCE SERVICE OFFERINGS
PGCC 3-2-2022

APPROVED APPROACH TO RATE DESIGN
Cost of Service (COS) Rate Design

1. Estimate the total cost necessary to serve all 3CE customers • Power procurement
• Energy Programs
• Rate stabilization fund
• Administrative costs

2. Create simple, easily understood customer classes based on size and usage profile

3. Allocate total cost across customer classes

4. Adjust allocations so each class will save a minimum of 1% relative to PG&E

5. Design rates for each customer class to recover costs allocated to that class

6. Rates will go live effective March 1, 2022 for customers within PG&E’s service territory PGCC 3-2-2022

Overview:
• $1.3 million in FY 18/19
• $5.4 million in FY 19/20
• $6.2 million in FY 20/21
• Estimated $14.1 million in FY 21/22
• 4% of operating revenue in FY 21/22
Electrification in building and
transportation sectors could
result in $3 billion of untapped
revenue market wide
CCCE Energy Programs
13 FY 21/22 Energy Programs
Electrify Your Ride - $2.8 million – NOVEMBER 2021
School Bus Electrification - $1 million - OCTOBER 2021
Agriculture Electrification - $600k - OCTOBER 2021
Residential Electrification - $1.6 million
New Construction Electrification - $1.5 million – OCYOBER 2021 Reach Code - $60k
Battery Energy Storage Pilot - $350k
Summer Readiness - $400k
Energy Education, Workforce Development and Innovation Grants - $1 million
Greenhouse Gas Inventory - $64k
PGCC 3-2-2022

Planning and Implementation
• Funding for planning and implementation projects related to electrification • Intended for member agencies to electrify their vehicle fleets, municipal properties, and the community infrastructure that serves households and businesses.

Innovation
• Funding to deploy new and innovative electrification or other clean energyrelated technology for municipal or community buildings and/or fleets. • Intended to foster market transformation, demonstrate scalable and replicable solutions, and identify potential future CCCE energy program concepts.

Electrification and Innovation Grant Program
PGCC 3-2-2022

Locally Sited Front of the Meter
Distributed Energy Storage Projects
Benefits
• Rate Stability reduced energy cost & reduced RA cost
• Grid Stability local power supply, critical period imports reduced => fewer outages • Grid services balance power flows
• Reduced GHGs evening dispatch of day-time “solar” electrons • Local jobs building and maintaining facilities
• Potential “microgrid” islanding => resiliency
PGCC 3-2-2022

Medium and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Electrification Program
• Intended to support the electrification of Member Agency medium and heavyduty fleet vehicles • Potential applications include street sweepers, refuse trucks, dump trucks, and first response vehicles
• CCCE will reserve funds for qualifying projects and funds will be dispersed once purchases and/or projects are completed
• Intended to work in coordination with city/county purchasing schedules and policies
• Incentives likely to be tied to increased cost of electric models from standard internal combustion options
PGCC 3-2-2022

September 30, 2021
COMING MID-NOVEMBER 2021
New and expanded Electrify Your Ride program will incentivize EV's, EV Chargers AND Electric Bikes with our largest energy program budget to date!
PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
by The Numbers
(96.4% Enrollment)
• 8,318 total enrolled customers
• 7,513 Residential
• 802 Commercial
• 0 Agricultural

ENERGY PROGRAM FUNDS
• Electrify Your Ride $38,020
PGCC 3-2-2022

Salinas & San Luis Obispo
Provided lunch & PPE to almost 500
workers and counting
FIELD PROMOTION 2021
PGCC 3-2-2022

Customer Resources & Tools
Phase 1
- Creating resources to help
customers get access to data and
make informed rate decisions
- Customer Energy Portal
- Rate Comparison Tool for Cost of
Service
Phase 2
- Harnessing customer data to
integrate energy programs and
opportunities for electrification
PGCC 3-2-2022

Vendor Registry
PGCC 3-2-2022

A Unified Central Coast CCA
Key Updates:
• Adopted Cost of Service rate structure to achieve
agency goals
• Working with CCCE member agencies on
regulatory and legislative matters that ensure customer fairness and equal access to resources • Pathway to achieve 100% clean and renewable
energy by 2030
• Leveraging Community Advisory Council for
outreach and non-voting seat participation on Operations & Policy Boards • Engaging with the community around
development of future programs
• Enrollment of over 140k customers in 2021 & 2022
across 12 communities
PGCC 3-2-2022

Stay Connected with CCCE
Follow us online, join our newsletter and board agenda notification list, and check our extensive FAQ section on the website.
www.3Cenergy.org
[email protected]

1.888.909.6227
@3CEnergy
@3CEnergy
@3CEnergyEnEspanol
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Minutes of the February 16, 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
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, February 16, 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 REQUIREDBY THE BROWN ACT.

Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855

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, Smith, and Tomlinson.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, the Council approved the agenda.

Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and Councilmember Poduri.

CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment was received from Jane Haines.

A. Public Employment, Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Attorney (For the Purposes of Discussing Request for Qualifications Process) draft PGCC 3-2-2022

2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 16, 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.

JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290

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, Smith, and Tomlinson. Councilmember Amelio left the webinar meeting at approximately 9:00 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Amelio led the pledge of allegiance.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, the Council voted to consider 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business agenda items prior to 11. Public Hearing agenda items.

Motion carried 5-2, by the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: Councilmembers Smith and Tomlinson.

ABSENT: None.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, the Council voted to table Regular Agenda item 11A. Vacation of Excess Right - of-Way on Sloat Avenue Pursuant to §§ 8300-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code due the Coastal Commission Appeal and the pending litigation.

Motion failed 3-4, by the following roll call vote:
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

3 AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, and Councilmember Coletti.

NOES: Councilmembers Amelio, Poduri, Smith, and Tomlinson.

ABSENT: None.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Smith, the Council voted to approve the agenda as amended, and continue Regular Agenda item 11C Amendment to AP/UP 16-203 previously approved AP/UP 16-203 (Council Resolution 18-030; September 5, 2018) to the Council’s March 16, 2022 meeting.

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. Boards, Committees, and Commissions Certificates
Action: Mayor Peake presented 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

Public Employment, Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Attorney (For the Purposes of Discussing Request for Qualifications Process) Mayor Peake reported that Council met with respect Closed Session Agenda item A.

Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams, Council voted to establish a subcommittee consisting of Mayor Peake, Councilmember Coletti and Councilmember Smith for posting a City Attorney RFQ.

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.

B. Council and staff made general announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Rebecca Lee, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani and Anthony Ciani.
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

4 CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 9A was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12H.

Consent Agenda item 9B was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12I.

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 January 19, 2022, City Council Special and Regular Meetings Action: Approved minutes as amended via Errata.

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 Action: Approved minutes.

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

6. RESOLUTIONS
A. CalRecycle Grant Resolution
Action: Adopted Resolution No. 22-008 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
A. Ordinance to Amend PGMC 23.80 - Accessory Dwelling Units Action: Held second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 22-002 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
A. Second Quarter Capital Improvement Budget Report
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

5 B. Check Register Report – January 2022
Action: Received the report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Core Revenue Report Status for January 2022
Action: Received 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
A. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda 12H.

Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
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. This item was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda 12I.

Reference: Joe Sidor, Contract Planner
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 Action: Approved 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 A. Architectural Review Board Minutes: October 12, 2021 Action: Received 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 Action: Received minutes.

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

REGULAR AGENDA

12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS – During the Approval of the Agenda, this section was moved to considered prior to 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS. draft PGCC 3-2-2022

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

No public comment was received.

Action:

Council received 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 Council received 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
Council received a status on improvements based on the auditor's recommendations that are being implemented and provided direction.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Cannabis Outreach Subcommittee Update
Public comment was received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Marsha, Lisa Ciani, Michelle Raine, Kimberly Brown, Anthony Ciani, Ezra, Brian McCarthy, and Wendi Giles.

Action: Motion by Councilmember Smith to extend the subcommittee 180 days died for lack of a second.

Action: Motion by Councilmember Tomlinson to table this item died for lack of a second.

Action: Council received report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Council took a break until 8:15 p.m.

C. Special Events Calendar for Fiscal Year 2022-2023
Public comment was received from Heather Mothershead Zunguze, George Powell, Brian McCarthy, Kathy Biala, Harvey Biala, Cristina Medina Dirksen, David Kong, Dr. Phuong Nguyen, Peter Mounteer, Shannon Warto, Caroline Haskell, Molly Daniels, Susan Schiavone, Amelia Murphy, Julia Goldman, Ana Chow, Deb Miller, Elena Loomis, Michael Ipson, Karen Andersen, Sharon Miller, Andrew Gonzalez, Angie Tran, Jihua, Eloise Shim, Klarity Coleman, Ezra, Jane Haines, Lisa Ciani, Janet Cohen, Leila, Wendy Root Askew, Anthony Ciani, Bruce Delgado, Sandy Lydon, Randy Sabado, Marsha, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to approve the Special Event Calendar for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, approve 13 proposed special events as City Sponsored Events and waive fees for City Staff support and facility/equipment use, approve 9 proposed special events as Full Cost Recovery Events and not approve the Legends of Autobahn event. draft PGCC 3-2-2022

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

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.

Action: Upon motion by Mayor Peake and seconded by Councilmember Tomlinson, Council voted to direct staff to return to Council with an ordinance to allow municipal code exceptions for designated events to allow pets in the parks Motion carried 6-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.

Action: A Motion by Mayor Pro Tem McAdams and seconded by Councilmember Tomlinson to direct the DEI Task Force to return with a draft event policy within six (6) months or a timeline within six (6) months when they can return with a policy was substituted by a motion from Councilmember Poduri.

Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember Smith, Council voted to direct the DEI Task Force to examine the Special Events Policy in an expedited basis timeline and return with three (3) month progress reports.

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

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Upon motion by Councilmember Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Smith, Council voted to continued past 10:00 p.m., consider Public Hearing item 11B, and continue all other matters.

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

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

8 D. Local Water Project Business Plan Peer Review Due to time constraints this item was continued.

Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager and 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 authorized staff to being negotiations with CourseCo; and approve a loan repaymentplan for the Sewer Fund Interfund Loan.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report
E. Hybrid Meeting Update Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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 Due to time constraints this item was continued.

Reference: Chaps Poduri, Councilmember and Bill Peake, Mayor Recommended Action: Direct staff to implement Financial Report Subcommittee recommendations listed in the agenda report.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
G. Monarch Resort Homekey Project Due to time constraints this item was continued.

Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Direct City Manager to begin public outreach on the Homekey project no later than March 16, 2022.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
H. Ratification of New Local Emergency Actions This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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
I. Contract Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Due to time constraints this item was continued.

Reference: Joe 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
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

9 11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way on Sloat Avenue Pursuant to §§ 8300-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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 Public comment was received from Anthony Ciani, Esther Malkin, Anais Broer, Megan Hunter and Marsha.

Action: Upon motion by Council Tomlinson and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council conducted 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 approved Housing staff to submit an application and Resolution No. 22-009 approving a funding application and the execution of a grant agreement and any amendments to the State CDBG Program.

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

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

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Councilmember Amelio.

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) During the Approval of the Agenda, this item was continued to the Council’s March 16, 2022 meeting.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
Recommended Action: Approve Amendment (No. 21-0457) to the previouslyapproved 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 Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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 draft PGCC 3-2-2022

10 the City Attorney.

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

13. NEW BUSINESS
A. FY21/22 Street Rehabilitation Project – Ocean View Blvd Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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 Due to time constraints this item was continued.

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 Due to time constraints this item was continued.

Reference: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem
Recommended Action: Discuss and provide direction as to removal of library fines and forgiveness of current outstanding overdue fines and directed 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
draft PGCC 3-2-2022

11 ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at approximately 11:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ draft PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Amy Tomlinson, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution in Support of Conveyance of the NOAA CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution in support of conveyance of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Property on Lighthouse Avenue to a joint venture between the Center for Ocean Art, Science, and Technology (CAOST) and Central Coast community Energy (3CE)

DISCUSSION
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) building on Lighthouse Avenue, Pacific Grove, California has been put up for auction by the General Services Administration (GSA) of the federal government as part of a high-value asset sale through the Federal Assets Sale Transfer Act (FASTA).

The property appears to no longer qualify as a high-value asset under the FASTA process, as acknowledged in a December 2021 Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) report highlighting the failure of the property to meet the minimum criteria for subsequent FASTA round.

Rather than allowing the auction of the property to continue, the Federal government has an opportunity to enable the community to restore the building in a way that would be of significant benefit to current and future generations, of both local community residents and visitors.

Renovation of the building to provide the community with a Center for Ocean Art, Science, and Technology (COAST) as well as headquarters for a regional renewable energy community choice aggregate leader Central California Community Energy (CCCE) would advance cutting-edge scientific and technological innovation in the region; promote the region's international reputation in ocean-inspired art, education, and public outreach; and bring significant benefits to both local community residents.

The building, with sea murals by Guggenheim-honored artist Ray Troll, overlooking Monterey Bay and the Great Tide Pool, could be transformed into an environmentally appropriate business workspace and art gallery, enabling the convergence of regional community business partners with and cutting-edge marine scientific and technological innovation with ocean-inspired art and virtual reality.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Project Supporters include: The Honorable Congressman Jimmy Panetta, Dr. Steve Palumbi, former Director of Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Station; Dr. Drew Harvell, Cornell Professor of Marine Biology and author of the award-winning books Sea of Glass and Ocean Outbreak; Dr. Kenneth Parker, climate change oceanographer and fine art photographer; Dr. Jennifer Carson, astrophysicist and former science museum manager; Dixie Layne, local historian, writer and board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Moe Ammar, President of the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce; Donna Gates, board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Frank Miscione, artist and civil engineer; Rick Steres, architect, researcher and board member of the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove; Lisa Ledin, radio announcer for NPR’s KAZU.

Next steps for a COAST and 3CE joint venture including:

1. Continuing to work with the Honorable Congressman Jimmy Panetta who strongly supports conveyance of the property to the local community, 3CE and COAST under a federal public benefit conveyance process.

2. Create a detailed plan for 3CE and COAST joint venture partnership

3. Engage and develop community support
GOAL ALIGNMENT:

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

City Asset Stewardship: Repair, maintain and improve City assets, including streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, buildings, parks, and trails to better serve the community, anticipate future needs and prevent further degradation.

Transparency, Accountability and Communications: implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City’s efforts

OPTIONS
Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None associated with proposed resolution.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: See Goal Alignment within Discussion section.

Attachments
Reso
PGCC 3-2-2022

RESOLUTION NO. 22-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

SUPPORTING CONVEYANCE OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION PROPERTY ON LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE TO A JOINT

VENTURE BETWEEN THE CENTER FOR OCEAN ART, SCEINCE, AND

TECHNOLOGY AND CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY ENERGY

FINDINGS

1. WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove is committed to restoring and preserving the archeologically and environmentally sensitive landscapes and ecosystems along the City's Monterey Bay shoreline; and

2. WHEREAS, the City has recently completed a project to restore the shoreline adjacent to the Pacific Grove Golf Links; and

3. WHEREAS, the City, the Heritage Society, and the community have recently completed a project to restore the Point Pinos Lighthouse, the oldest continuously operating Lighthouse on the west coast; and

4. WHEREAS, the City, assisted by the Monterey County Parks District, the Transportation Agency of Monterey County, and others, has developed the Recreation Trail along the City's shoreline, making Pacific Grove one of the few cities on the west coast to preserve virtually the entire coastline in public ownership for the enjoyment and education of the public;

5. WHEREAS, the City is actively working to acquire or otherwise ensure that the remaining railroad right of way is retained as a nature path open to the public; and

6. WHEREAS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has surplused 4.3 acres of land and a building in the midst of the City's natural habitat restoration areas; and

7. WHEREAS, NOAA has not had either adequate resources or the interest to preserve and restore the land to its native state; and

8. WHEREAS, the General Services Administration (GSA) of the federal government is attempting to auction the NOAA property in its high-value asset sale through the Federal Assets Sale Transfer Act (FASTA) process; and

9. WHEREAS, the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) failed to engage with community stakeholders, as required, prior to determining the eligibility of the property for inclusion as a high-value asset in the FASTA process; and

10. WHEREAS, the PBRB has not disclosed publicly how the NOAA property was originally determined to be of sufficient value, given the many constraints on its use, for inclusion as a high-value asset in the FASTA process; and

11. WHEREAS, the property appears to no longer qualify as a high-value asset under the FASTA process, as acknowledged in a December 2021 PBRB report highlighting the failure of the property to meet the minimum criteria for the subsequent FASTA round ; and

12. WHEREAS, as a condition of receiving a determination of concurrence letter from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) that transfer of ownership of the NOAA property would not adversely impact coastal PGCC 3-2-2022

resources, the GSA agreed to disclose all relevant Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program land-use policies to potential auction bidders ; and

13. WHEREAS, as requested in the CCC’s determination letter, the GSA has not adequately informed potential auction bidders in its disclosure documents that the Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program's land-use policy limits uses of the property to "coastal-dependent marine research and educational activities, aquaculture, and coastal dependent recreational access that is compatible with maintenance of coastal-dependent scientific and educational uses"; and

14. WHEREAS, rather than allowing the auction of the property to continue, the Federal government has an opportunity to enable the community to restore all of the lands between Lighthouse Avenue, Asilomar Avenue, and Ocean View Boulevard, and fully integrate those restored lands into the City's other nature restoration and preservation and areas; and

15. WHEREAS, this restored land would be of significant benefit to current and future generations, of both local community residents and visitors; and

16. WHEREAS, renovation of the building to provide the community with a Center for Ocean Art, Science, and Technology (COAST) as well as headquarters for a regional renewable energy community choice aggregate leader Central California Community Energy (CCCE) would advance cutting-edge scientific and technological innovation in the region; promote the region's international reputation in ocean-inspired art, education, and public outreach; and bring significant benefits to both local community residents and visitors; and

17. WHEREAS, COAST, with its goal of highlighting ocean art, science and technology while preserving the building's spectacular and unique ocean-themed mural by world-renowned artist Ray Troll, has garnered over 2,000 signatories on a petition to save the decommissioned NOAA facility; and

18. WHEREAS, the City passed a resolution (No. 21-011) in 2021 in support of COAST’s efforts to garner community support for saving the mural, for securing the NOAA building for the community, and for developing a plan for housing an ocean science- and art-related program in the building, and

19. WHEREAS, restoration of the land and renovation of the building, when combined with the other projects the City has underway, would significantly increase the overall benefit to the local environment, residents, and the tens of thousands of visitors each year from throughout the United States and around the world, takes on added value to our community and nation; and

20. WHEREAS, the Honorable Congressman Jimmy Panetta strongly supports conveyance of the property to the local community and has demonstrated his support through letters to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Administrators of the GSA and NOAA, and

21. WHEREAS, the Pacific Grove City Council has continually indicated its support for a community supported reuse as evident by their passage of a previous resolution (No. 12-025) in 2012 requesting that the Lighthouse Avenue property be conveyed to the City for under a federal public benefit conveyance process.

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

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

PGCC 3-2-2022

2. The Council authorizes adoption of this resolution to support a joint venture between the Center for Ocean Art, Science, and Technology and Central Coast Community Energy.

3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately following passage and adoption thereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 2nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED: _______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Joe Amelio, Council Member
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Monterey Salinas Transit Meeting Minutes for December 13, 2021 and January 10, 2022
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
December 2021
January 2022
PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda # 3-3
February 14, 2022 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING MINUTES
December 13, 2021
10:00 am (Pacific)

Present: Jeff Baron City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
Lorraine Worthy City of Gonzales
Yanely Martinez City of Greenfield
Mike LeBarre City of King
David Burnett City of Marina
Dan Albert City of Monterey
Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove
Tony Barrera City of Salinas
Mary Ann Carbone City of Sand City
Dave Pacheco City of Seaside
Anna Velazquez City Soledad
Luis Alejo County of Monterey

Absent: John Gaglioti City of Del Rey Oaks
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Lisa Rheinheimer Assistant General Manager
Norman Tuitavuki Chief Operating Officer
Michael Kohlman Chief Information Officer
Kelly Halcon Director of HR & Risk Management
Michelle Overmeyer Director of Planning & Innovation
Andrea Williams General Accounting & Budget Manager
Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary
Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Customer Service Manager Sonia Wills Customer Service Supervisor
Matthew Deal Grants Analyst
Scott Taylor IT Manager
Ezequiel Rebollar IT Technician
Oscar Lemus Inventory Clerk
Paul Lopez Facilities Manager
Sherman Upshaw Facilities Technician
Deanna Smith Civil Rights Officer
PGCC 3-2-2022

Lisa Cox Risk and Safety Manager
Elena Grigorichina Operations Analyst
Marzette Henderson Contract Services Manager
Claudia Valencia Mobility Specialist
Ruben Gomez Mobility Specialist
Lesley vanDalen Mobility Specialist
Sandra Amorim Procurement & Contracts Manager
Beronica Carriedo Community Relations Coordinator
Sloan Campi Planning Manager
Emma Patel Associate Planner
Counsel: David Laredo General Counsel, De Lay & Laredo
Michael D. Laredo Associate Counsel, De Lay & Laredo
Public: Douglas Thomson MV Transportation
Don Gilchrest Thomas Walter and Associates
Madilyn Jacobsen Caltrans District 5 Planning
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call.
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.
1-3. Review Highlights of the agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)
Chair Albert called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Roll call was taken as the meeting was held via ZOOM teleconference. A quorum was established. General Manager/CEO Carl Sedoryk reviewed the highlights of the agenda.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no public comments.

3. CLOSED SESSION
3-1. Review General Manager/CEO Performance Incentive Gov. Code § 54957. (Dan Albert)
There were no public comments.

General Counsel, Dave Laredo reported that the Board reviewed Closed Session item 3-1 and would act on the matter during Agenda item #7-6.

PGCC 3-2-2022

4. CONSENT AGENDA
4-1. Approve Resolution 2022-16 Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings. (Carl Sedoryk)
4-2. Adopt Resolution 2022-17 Recognizing Oscar Lemus, Inventory Clerk, as Employee of the Month for December 2021. (Frank Marcos) 4-3. Approve Minutes of the MST Board Meeting on November 15, 2021. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)
4-4. Receive Draft Minutes of the MST Board Administrative Performance Committee Meeting on November 15, 2021. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) 4-5. Financial Reports – October 2021. (Lori Lee)
a) Accept Reports of October 2021 Cash Flow
b) Approve October 2021 Disbursements
c) Accept Report of October Treasury Transactions
4-6. Receive Report on Lost and Found Items Left on MST Property for the Month of August. (Sonia Wills)
4-7. Receive 2022 MST Board Meeting Calendar and Committee Meeting Schedules. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)
4-8. Receive Results of the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) FY2021 COVID-19 Relief Electronic Clearing House Operation System (ECHO) Drawdown Review. (Deanna Smith)
End of Consent Agenda
There were no public comments on the Consent Agenda.

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Carbone and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved all items on the Consent Agenda:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez,
and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
PGCC 3-2-2022

5. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5-1. December 2021 Employee of the Month – Oscar Lemus, Inventory Clerk. (Norman Tuitavuki)
5-2. Recognition of 25 Years of Service – Fernando Andrade, Coach Operator. (Norman Tuitavuki)
5-3. Recognition of 25 Years of Service – Daniel Vohl, Coach Operator. (Norman Tuitavuki)
5-4. Recognition of 25 Years of Service – Sherman Upshaw, Facilities, Technician. (Paul Lopez)
5-5. Recognition of 20 Years of Service – Rommel Nieves, Utility Service Technician. (Norman Tuitavuki)
5-6. Receive Staff Report on Activities Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic Incident Response and Recovery Planning to Date and Provide Direction, If Needed. (Carl Sedoryk)
The MST Board received a report from the General Manager/CEO on activities related to COVID-19 pandemic incident response and recovery planning.

Chair Albert provided direction to staff to make the matter of hybrid meetings as an action item on the January 2022 agenda.

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

7. ACTION ITEMS
7-1. Approve 2022 State Legislative Program. (Michelle Overmeyer) There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Worthy and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved the 2022 State Legislative Program:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
PGCC 3-2-2022

7-2. Approve 2022 Federal Legislative Program. (Carl Sedoryk) There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Alejo and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved the 2022 Federal Legislative Program:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
7-3. Adopt Resolution No. 2022-18 Approving Monterey-Salinas Transit District’s (MST) Zero-Emissions Bus (ZEB) Rollout Plan for Submission to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in Compliance with the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation. (Norman Tuitavuki)
There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director LeBarre, seconded by Director Burnett and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board adopted Resolution No. 2022-18 approving Monterey-Salinas Transit District’s (MST) Zero Emissions Bus (ZEB) Rollout Plan for submission to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in Compliance with the Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
7-4. Authorize General Manager/CEO to Execute a Contract with Kimley-Horn for SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Final Design Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $5,000,000 Pending Execution of a Measure X Funding Agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, Certifying that a Skilled and Trained Workforce Will be Used for the SURF! Busway and BRT Project and Directing Kimley-Horn to Incorporate Such Requirements into the Bidding Process, as Provided in Attachment 1. (Lisa Rheinheimer) There were no public comments.

PGCC 3-2-2022

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Velazquez and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board authorized the General Manager/CEO to execute a contract with Kimley-Horn for SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project final design services in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000 pending execution of a Measure X funding agreement with the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, certifying that a skilled and trained workforce will be used for the SURF! Busway and BRT Project, and directing Kimley-Horn to incorporate such requirements into the bidding process:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
7-5. Authorize General Manager/CEO to Execute a Contract with California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) for a Free Fare Program in an Amount not to Exceed $120,000 for the Spring 2022 Semester. (Michelle Overmeyer)
There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Worthy, seconded by Director Velazquez and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board authorized the General Manager/CEO to execute a contract with California State University, Monterey Bay (CSUMB) for a Free Fare Program in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for the Spring 2022 semester:

AYES: 12 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0
7-6. Approve the Recommendation of the General Manager Performance Evaluation Ad Hoc Committee of 4.7% Incentive Pay for the General Manager/CEO. (Dan Albert)
There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Velazquez and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved the recommendation of the General Manager Performance Evaluation Ad Hoc Committee of 4.7% Incentive Pay for the General Manager/CEO:

PGCC 3-2-2022

AYES: 11 Albert, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy
NOES: 1 Alejo
ABSENT: 1 Gaglioti
ABSTAIN: 0

8. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board received and filed these reports, which do not require action by the Board. 8-1. General Manager/CEO Report – November 2021
8-2. Federal Legislative Advocacy Report – December 2021 8-3. State Legislative Advocacy Update - None
8-4. Staff Trip Reports
8-5. Correspondence – None

9. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS
9-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)
9-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.
a) Recognition of Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez, Marketing and Customer Service Manager, Graduation from Leadership Monterey County.

The MST Board congratulated Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez on her recent graduation from the Leadership Monterey County program.
9-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

10. RETURN TO CLOSED SESSION AND REPORT
10-1. Conference with Labor Contract Negotiator - General Manager/CEO Contract Gov. Code § 54957. (Dan Albert)
General Counsel, Dave Laredo reported that the MST Board provided direction to the Chair to meet with the General Manager/CEO for further contract negotiation with the intent to discuss with the full Board in closed session of the January 2022 Board meeting.

PGCC 3-2-2022

11. ATTACHMENTS
11-1. The Detailed Monthly Performance Statistics and Disbursement Journal for October 2021 can be viewed online within the GM Report at http://mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/

12. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:29 p.m. (Pacific) in memory, and in honor of Lupe Galaviz, a long-time transit services advocate from the City of Soledad who recently passed away.

PREPARED BY:___________________ REVIEWED BY:__________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda # 3-2
February 14, 2022 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING MINUTES
January 10, 2022
10:00 am (Pacific)

Present: Jeff Baron City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
John Gaglioti City of Del Rey Oaks
Lorraine Worthy City of Gonzales
Yanely Martinez City of Greenfield
Mike LeBarre City of King
David Burnett City of Marina
Dan Albert City of Monterey
Joe Amelio City of Pacific Grove
Tony Barrera City of Salinas
Mary Ann Carbone City of Sand City
Dave Pacheco City of Seaside
Anna Velazquez City Soledad
Luis Alejo County of Monterey

Absent: None
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Lisa Rheinheimer Assistant General Manager
Norman Tuitavuki Chief Operating Officer
Michael Kohlman Chief Information Officer
Kelly Halcon Director of HR & Risk Management
Michelle Overmeyer Director of Planning & Innovation
Andrea Williams General Accounting & Budget Manager
Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Deputy Secretary
Ikuyo Yoneda-Lopez Marketing & Customer Service Manager Sonia Wills Customer Service Supervisor
Matthew Deal Grants Analyst
Scott Taylor IT Manager
Ezequiel Rebollar IT Technician
Deanna Smith Civil Rights Officer
Lisa Cox Risk and Safety Manager
Elena Grigorichina Operations Analyst
Marzette Henderson Contract Services Manager
Claudia Valencia Mobility Specialist
PGCC 3-2-2022

Ruben Gomez Mobility Specialist
Lesley vanDalen Mobility Specialist
Beronica Carriedo Community Relations Coordinator
Sloan Campi Planning Manager
Emma Patel Associate Planner
David Bielsker Transit Scheduler
Counsel: David Laredo General Counsel, De Lay & Laredo
Michael D. Laredo Associate Counsel, De Lay & Laredo
Public: Douglas Thomson MV Transportation

Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call.
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.
1-3. Review Highlights of the agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)
Chair Albert called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. Roll call was taken as the meeting was held via ZOOM teleconference. A quorum was established. General Manager/CEO Carl Sedoryk reviewed the highlights of the Agenda.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no public comments.

3. CLOSED SESSION
3-1. Conference with Labor Contract Negotiators - General Manager/CEO Contract Gov. Code § 54957. (Dan Albert/ Dave Laredo)
3-2. Conference with Legal Counsel to Provide Direction on Pending Litigation:

Ortiz v. Monterey-Salinas Transit District, et al Monterey Superior Court, Case No. 20CV002253. (Kelly Halcon/Dave Laredo)
There were no public comments on the Closed Session agenda.

General Counsel, Dave Laredo reported that the Board reviewed Closed Session item 3-1 and is on the Action Items agenda under item #7-1.

General Counsel, Dave Laredo reported that the Board reviewed Closed Session item 3-2 and general direction was provided but no reportable action was taken.

PGCC 3-2-2022

4. CONSENT AGENDA
4-1. Approve Resolution 2022-19 Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings. (Carl Sedoryk)
4-2. Approve Resolution 2022-20 Recognizing David Bielsker, Transit Scheduler, as Employee of the Month for January 2022. (Sloan Campi) 4-3 Approve Resolution 2022-21 Recognizing Team MST as Employee of the Year for 2021. (Carl Sedoryk)
There were no public comments on the Consent Agenda.

Director LeBarre pulled agenda item 4-1 from the Consent Agenda for comment.

On a motion by Director Amelio, seconded by Director Carbone and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved items 4-2 and 4-3 on the Consent Agenda:

AYES: 13 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
Chair Albert opened Board member comments and discussion on pulled Consent Agenda item 4-1.

On a motion by Director Baron, seconded by Director Alejo and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved Consent Agenda item 4-1 Resolution 2022-19, unmodified and as presented by staff proclaiming a state of emergency and authorizing remote teleconference meetings in accordance with the Brown Act:

AYES: 9 Albert, Alejo, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, Martinez, Pacheco, and Velazquez
NOES: 4 Amelio, Gaglioti, LeBarre, and Worthy
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0

5. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5-1. January 2022 Employee of the Month – David Bielsker (Sloan Campi) 5-2. 2021 Employee of the Year Presentation. (Carl Sedoryk) PGCC 3-2-2022

5-3. 2021 Management Excellence Award – Lisa Cox, Risk and Security Manager (Carl Sedoryk)

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

7. ACTION ITEMS
7-1. Approve 5-Year Employment Agreement with Carl G. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO. (Kelly Halcon)
There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Worthy, seconded by Director Amelio and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved the 5-year Employment Agreement with Carl G. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO:

AYES: 13 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, LeBarre, Martinez, Pacheco, Velazquez, and Worthy NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
7-2. Approve an In-Person/Virtual Hybrid Meeting Option for MST Board and Committee Meetings for Remainder of the Calendar Year, Pending Mandatory Changes Implemented by the County of Monterey, State, or Federal Government. (Carl Sedoryk)
There were no public comments.

On a motion by Director Baron, seconded by Director Velazquez and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call, the Board approved an in-person /virtual hybrid meeting format to allow Board members and members of the public to attend and participate in Board and Committee meetings. Board members, MST staff, and those from the public may attend inperson meetings adhering to certain requirements including proof of a COVID-19 vaccination, wearing an approved face covering and social distancing in the Board room. Staff will provide approved face coverings to those in attendance lacking such and provide rapid COVID antigen tests to Board members who wish to test in advance of the meeting. The Chair will not seat any member of the Board who does not comply with requirements listed above.

AYES: 11 Albert, Alejo, Amelio, Baron, Barrera, Burnett, Carbone, Gaglioti, Martinez, Pacheco, and Velazquez
NOES: 2 LeBarre and Worthy
PGCC 3-2-2022

ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 0

7-3. Receive FY 2021/22 and 2022/23 Project Action Plan Update. (Carl Sedoryk)
There were no public comments.

The MST Board received the FY 2021/22 and 2022/23 Project Action Plan Update from the General Manager/CEO. The following items were deferred to the February Agenda for further review and discussion:
a. Salinas Transit Center (STC) Relocation Request by Taylor Farms; b. Receive Presentation from ELT on Strategic Planning items; and c. Governor’s Proposed Budget for FY 2022/23.

8. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
None.

9. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS
9-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)
9-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.

Chair Albert announced the APTA Transit Board Member Virtual Seminar which runs from January 26 - February 2 is open for registration. Any board member who wants to attend should inform the MST Board Clerk by Friday, January 14 for registration.
9-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

10. ATTACHMENTS
None.

11. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 p.m. (Pacific).

PREPARED BY:___________________ REVIEWED BY:__________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: March 2, 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:

PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

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 adopted 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 PGCC 3-2-2022

the City Council a contract with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to prepare a Focused EIR for the project at 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
Draft Reimbursement Agreement
PGCC 3-2-2022

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 __________________.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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:

PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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
PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 1 1 G a r d e n R o ad , S u i te C - 250
Monterey, California 939 40
831 3 3 3 0 3 1 0
i n f o @ ri n c o n c o n s u l t a n ts .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s 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
PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

(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, PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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]
PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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
PGCC 3-2-2022

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

PGCC 3-2-2022

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

PGCC 3-2-2022

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

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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

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]
PGCC 3-2-2022

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

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]
PGCC 3-2-2022

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

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"
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Committee and Liaison Appointments
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointments of Kathleen Balke to the Administrative Enforcement Hearing Officer Panel and Chip Rerig to the Economic Development Commission both for a term ending January 31, 2024.

Endorse Councilmember Coletti as Council liaison for the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission.

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 nominally 2 years for non-Charter committees.

Council liaisons are designated for each of our city boards, committees, and commissions. The liaison role is described in the Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook. Currently, the Council liaison position for the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission is vacant.

OPTIONS
None.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Redacted Apps
PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda No. 9 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Mohammed Khasimi, Chief Information Officer
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Alvarez Technology Group for Information Technology Services
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve amendment to the contract with Alvarez Technology Group in amount not to exceed $73,500.

DISCUSSION
In November of 2021, when the City’s Information Technology department experienced sudden staffing shortages, the staff employed Alvarez Technology Group for on-site IT support services. The City also contracts with Alvarez Technology Group on an annual basis for after-hours support. The term of the annual contract coincides with the City’s fiscal year.

Last year’s contract was renewed at $7,000, which only covered retention of the active after-hours support agreement. However, the City incurred additional expenses for on-site IT support services due to position vacancies, and therefore, amended and increased the contract from $7,000 to $39,000 in December of 2021, under the City Manager’s spending authority.

Staff has tried to recruit for a 3/4 interim Management Analyst-Information Technology to assist during an employee leave of absence; and a half-time Information Technology Support Specialist to fill a vacant position. The interim Management Analyst recruitment did not yield any applicants; and the recruitment for the Information Technology Specialist produced one viable candidate. The City was in the process of scheduling a second interview with the candidate; however the individual withdrew because he did not want to accept a half-time position.

Due to continued staffing shortages in the Information Technology department, the staff is requesting Council approval to increase the contract amount by $34,500, bringing the total contract amount to $73,500. This amount represents the $7,000 in after-hours support and $66,500 for temporary on-site managed services. The additional funding of $34,500 represents the estimated costs to provide support until the Management Analyst returns in mid to early April; and a reduced level of support while staff conducts a second recruitment for the Information Technology Support Specialist; or while other alternatives are considered.

OPTIONS
PGCC 3-2-2022

1. Approve the amendment to the contract

2. Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. The funds to support the contract amendment will be compensated from staff vacancies in the Fiscal Year 21/22 in the Information Technology Budget.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda No. 9 E

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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Veteran's Home in Monterey County
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve support letter for Veteran’s Home in Monterey County.

DISCUSSION
The construction of a new Veterans Home in Monterey County would help to alleviate the long wait times and keep our Veterans in the State. It is our joint obligation to do all we can to care for those who have selflessly served for the freedoms we have today. This home will decrease the risk of these veterans becoming homeless.

The location in Monterey County, will provide an attractive geographical location with a rich Military History and current Military presence. Residents of the Veterans Home would have easy access to the Major General William H. Gourley VA-DoD Outpatient Clinic, Commissary’s, Post Exchanges, Military Gyms and other Military / Veteran accessible facilities. There are a large variety of beaches, walking / bike trails and County / State / National parks that will promote outdoor activity.

Additionally, Monterey County is interested in contributing land for a new CalVET Veterans Home and Federal Grants are available for 65% of construction costs of the new Veteran Home.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Support Letter
PGCC 3-2-2022

Phone (831) 648-3106 ▫ Fax (831) 657-9361 ▫ www.cityofpacificgrove.org

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue ▫ Pacific Grove, California
March 2, 2022
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Alex Padilla
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Anna Caballero
12th Senate District
1021 O Street, Rm 7620
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Jimmy Panetta
406 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable John Laird
17th Senate District
1021 O Street, Rm 8720
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Robert Rivas
30th Assembly District
1021 O Street, Rm 5110
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Mark Stone
29th Assembly District
1021 O Street, Rm 5740
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Support for a Veteran’s Home in Monterey County
Dear Monterey Bay Region Federal and State Legislators:

Pacific Grove supports Monterey County’s request for authorizing legislation allowing a Veteran’s Home to be built in the region.

Currently, there are extended wait times to access the established Veterans Homes in the State for much needed services. If Veterans are unable to access Veteran Home services timely, they will have to seek other options, potentially out of the State of California or even risk becoming homeless. For Veterans in need of Skilled Nursing and Memory Care must wait years before they get admitted. The construction of a new Veterans Home in Monterey County would help to alleviate the long wait times and keep our Veterans in the State. Current wait times for these services are:
• Yountville: 5 years wait time for admittance.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Re: Support for a Veteran’s Home in Monterey County
March 2, 2022

• West Los Angeles: 2 years wait time for admittance.
• Fresno: 4 years wait time for admittance.
• Redding: 5 years wait time for admittance.

California is losing veterans at an alarming rate – much faster than the next 2 largest veteran population states (Texas and Florida). We owe all we have to the veterans of this Nation, and it is our joint obligation to do all we can to care for those who have selflessly served for the freedoms we have today. Currently California Veterans receive more than 8 Billion in Federal VA Compensation and Pension Payments. In addition, many receive Post 9/11 GI Bill, Chapter 33 Education Benefits and DoD Retirements. If Veterans leave the state so will the need for Veteran Serving organizations that create high paying jobs with the Federal VA, State, Counties, Private Sector and Non-Profits that serve our Veterans. Veterans positively impact the California Ecosystem.

The construction of a new Veteran’s Home will lower or eliminate wait times for admittance into the CalVET Veterans Homes for services including combined skilled nursing & memory care services. Adding an additional Veterans Home will increase the number of homes to 9 in the state. Homes are available to Disabled and Aged Veterans as well as spouses. This home will provide much needed care to our states heroes and decrease the risk of these veterans becoming homelessness. In addition, the location in Monterey County, will provide an attractive geographical location with a rich Military History and current Military presence. Residents of the Veterans Home would have easy access to the Major General William H. Gourley VA-DoD Outpatient Clinic, Commissary’s, Post Exchanges, Military Gyms and other Military / Veteran accessible facilities. There are a large variety of beaches, walking / bike trails and County / State / National parks that will promote outdoor activity.

Additionally, Monterey County is interested in contributing land for a new CalVET Veterans Home and Federal Grants are available for 65% of construction costs of the new Veteran Home.

Please support Monterey County’s request for State authorization to build a Veteran’s Home in the region.

Thank you for giving this your consideration.

Sincerely,
Bill Peake, Mayor
cc: Mayor Pro Tempore McAdams
Councilmember Smith
Councilmember Tomlinson
Councilmember Amelio
Councilmember Coletti
Councilmember Poduri
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Beautification and Natural Resources Commission Minutes: December 21, 2021 and January 18, 2022
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
December 2021
January 2022
PGCC 3-2-2022

SUBJECT: December 21, 2021, BNRC meeting minutes
------------------------------------------------------------

1. Call to order at 4:01 p.m.

Roll Call: Six commissioners present at start: Thom Akeman, Sara Green, Megan McKenna, Susan Myers, Colleen Ingram, Cathy Wooten. Tardy: Claudia Vierneisel

2. Approval of December Agenda: approved Agenda 6:0.

3. Commission and staff announcements (City-related items only):
• Staff Gho announced this day as Caleb Schneider’s last day of work. He thanked him for his commitment and service.
• Wooten thanked Caleb for his service, his ability to work with diverse and strong personalities. • Chair Akeman thanked Caleb and recalled their first meeting and being honored and awed by him. • McKenna announced that she and Ingram attended the first Monterey County Climate Action Workshop. Both met later as climate action subcommittee members and will be attending the second meeting when it is held. The subcommittee will likely be activated after that meeting. • Chair Akeman announced that last week the judge in the Jewell Park elm tree case decided the City had the right to remove the tree and it was removed promptly.
• Chair Akeman shared information concerning Goals B3- Shoreline and The Whale Trail. After attending a presentation by The Whale Trail’s founder, it was confirmed that the project does not align with Pacific Grove. He suggested that if we were going to add any signage that it would be about grey whales, humpbacks, etc.

4. Council Liaison announcements
• Council member Nick Smith-absent.

5. General Public Comments
Written: 3 emails
• Clemencia Macias regarding interest in the Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary subcommittee • Anthony Ciani letter to Community Development Dept concerning the Jewell Park tree planting plan for the 5 replacement trees
• Lisa Ciani requesting the IPM be posted on the BNRC website as well as two natural resource documents and the CWPAC Report, clarifying previous meeting comments, requesting that BNRC goal Coastal Trail Access Project be broken out into specific regions for clarity, requesting the ‘wildlife advisory board’ be described as the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee in order to clearly link it to the CWAPC report, and encouraging everyone’s personal participation in the City Council hearing on January 12th for the ATC Hotel Project.

Oral
• Lisa Ciani reiterating the concerns covered in her written comments 6A. Action: Approval of the minutes of the October 19th 2021 meeting • Wooten motioned to approve the minutes, Green 2nd 7:0 approval.

7. Regular Agenda:
7A. Update on the Management Plan for the Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary Reference: Caleb Schneider, Environmental Program Manager Recommended Action: Receive report.

Public Comment:
•Dixie Layne supported Caleb’s concerns as well as watering needs/lack of need, wind damage to the butterflies, and suggested that we should reconsider eliminating the play area in George Washington Park instead of using 50K to update it in a natural habitat area.
•Dominic Sinicropi commented concerning the needs of monarchs at night before the sun goes down. Agreed with the need to continue MBS restoration as well as around town. Last week’s storm created a 15% loss of monarchs.

PGCC 3-2-2022

•Mary Dainton echoed Caleb’s value, asked who to refer to in his absence and Gho saidthat he would be the point person. Stated there has been a very high volume of visitors, the need to get rid of the sour grass but cannot during the overwintering, and the need for more natives and native nectar plants.

Commissioner Comment:
•Wooten stated she volunteers at the Sanctuary and that having a habitat management plan is critical, and hopes that the City, BNRC, PW and Council will push this through. It may be expensive, but it is at the core of our city. She hopes that Caleb’s replacement has the needed knowledge to move this forward. •Chair Akeman commented that the best part about the report is that the City will be part of the Monarch plans. 7B. Tree Appeal: 718 Sunset Drive
Reference: Dan Gho, Public Works Director
Recommended Action: Uphold the City Arborist decision for tree permit application #21-104 denying the removal of one Monterey Pine at 718 Sunset Drive and deny the appeal of Moe Ammar Public Comment:
•Lisa Ciani commented that she understands Ammar’s concerns. Single pines are scary. •Kim Akeman agreed with the concerns and commented that who trims the trees and how they trim makes a difference.

We need these upper canopy trees.

Commissioner Comment:
•Wooten asked arborist Weisfuss to comment if the trimming of the tree would make it safer. Weisfuss suggested removing some branches around the power lines and reduce/remove one of the lateral branches. Taking too many limbs will expose other limbs.
•Appellant Ammar was given permission to share that Tope’s has trimmed the tree and they are knowledgeable and reputable.
•Wooten asked Weisfuss if the tree was trimmed as suggested, would it make it safer long term? Weisfuss said that based on Ammar’s tree, which is a mature canopy, the answer is not to remove the tree- it has to do with maintaining the tree.
•Chair Akeman confirmed with Weisfuss and staff that the tree is structurally sound. •Ingram commented that mature tree limbs hang over houses all around town, there is always a chance of limbs falling and it does happen. Some properties aren’t suited for ADUs because of the landscape. Agreed with Ammar that the accident in the Monarch Sanctuary was tragic, but the resulting action was over correcting and damaging. The tree was there first.

Action: Ingram motion to uphold City Arborist decision to deny removal, Myers 2nd, 7-0 approval 7C. Lovers Point Beautification Project
Reference: Colleen Ingram on behalf of Sustainable Pacific Grove Recommended Action: Receive report- request to submit to Council for concept approval No Comments:

Action: Chair Akeman moved to submit to Council for concept approval, Myers 2nd, 7-0 approval 7D. George Washington Park Volunteer Opportunity
Reference: Chair Akeman (GWP subcommittee)
Recommended Action: Receive report and share informational flyer Public Comment:
•Lisa Ciani commented that the flyer is great and thanked Chair Akeman and volunteers for the work.

8. NEXT MEETING: January 18th, 2022.

9. ADJOURNMENT: Wooten motion to adjourn Ingram 2
nd
, 7-0 approval of 5:30 adjournment
Submitted by Colleen Ingram, Secretary
PGCC 3-2-2022

SUBJECT January 18, 2022, BNRC meeting minutes

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the meeting minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------

1. Call to order at 4:01 p.m.

Roll Call: All commissioners present: Thom Akeman, Sara Green, Colleen Ingram, Megan McKenna, Susan Myers, Claudia Vierneisel, Cathy Wooten.

2. Approval of January 18 agenda
Ingram motion to approve change, Wooten 2
nd, 7-0 approval.

3. Commission and staff announcements (City-related items only) Commissioners
• McKenna- For anyone interested, The Monterey Community Climate Action Working Group will be meeting on the January 27th to go over the greenhouse gas inventory. You can read it online, but it will be presented by the Alternative Energy and Environment Commission will be putting that on. It is all on the county’s website so you can register to attend online.

Staff
• Gho- Thanked Akeman for his years of service – this being the last meeting with Akeman as Chair. He has been on the BNRC for the 8 years that Gho has been attending BNRC meetings.

4. Council liaison announcements
• Council member Nick Smith – absent

5. General Public Comments
Written
Rebecca Lee
• Concerned with the root system of the existing trees that surround the removed Elm tree.

Questioned the need for concrete walkway, questioned the need for an extra wide sidewalk, the need for a sidewalk at all (not in Caledonia, George Washington, Berwick). Requested consideration of alternatives to concrete sidewalks, and for public inclusion in the planning of the 5 trees in Jewell Park.

Public
Luke Coletti
• Thanked Thom for all of his service and passion, everything that he has done for Pacific Grove Rebecca Lee
• Thanked Thom for his service, and voiced concern for the remaining trees around the Elm tree that was removed in Jewell Park. Further root pruning and replacement of the sidewalk damaged the stability of these trees and continued business as usual. An opportunity to change our methods was missed. Please include in goals- protect street trees, assess need for such a large sidewalk at Forest Ave at Jewell, and plan the 5 replacement trees in Jewell and include the public in the process.

6. Approval of the minutes of the December 2021, BNRC meeting • Wooten motion to approve the minutes, Myers 2
nd. 7-0 approval.

7. Regular Agenda
7A. Restoration Project at George Washington Park
Reference: Thom Akeman
Recommended Action: Discuss and accept report.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Public comment: -none
Commissioner comments: -none
7B. Monarch Butterfly Sanctuary Update
Reference: Cathy Wooten
Recommended Action:
• Receive presentation and report.

Public comments:

Dominic Sinicropi
• Thanked Wooten for the update. Good to see the BNRC form a subcommittee on the Sanctuary and to have regular updates. Agree that the Monarch Sanctuary Management Plan be formed as soon as possible. Will there be opportunities for public discussion? What is the timeline for the development of the Plan? Can we have a plan sooner than Caleb’s notion of several years in the making? Friends of the Monarchs made recommendations that could use discussion. We have trees ready to plant per the recommendations of Dr. Leon.

Commissioner comments:

Vierneisel
• Thanked Wooten for the presentation. Some visitors were questioning what kinds of nectar plants were there, but the signage had worn away.

Ingram
• Wondered about the decline – what would account for the big decline in December? Wooten answered weather- the big storm.
• Asked if the decline could be the result of the increase in visitors to the Sanctuary? It has been speculated that activities in George Washington Park affected the butterfly population there. Should there be a cap on the number of visitors at one time? Wooten thought it was a good question, but did not have the information to answer, and suggested that it could be examined by the management planning. The butterflies do respond to predators – such as dogs, which is one of the reasons they aren’t allowed in the Sanctuary.

McKenna
• Thanked Wooten for the presentation. Has visited the Sanctuary several times and has enjoyed it.

Wooten
• Question for Gho: What is the status of the replacement for the Environmental Programs Manager? Gho answered that they are interviewing now. There were 8 qualified applicants and 4 are being interviewed now.

Action: Accept the report
Myers motioned to accept, Green 2nd 7-0 approval

8. Next Meeting February
Additional Commissioners Comments:

Wooten, Vierneisel, Myers– Thanked Thom for all his efforts and positive contributions to Pacific Grove: George Washington Park and all of the trees that he has cared for, the harbor seals, and everything before the BNRC.

ADJOURNMENT 4:35
Green motioned, Akeman 2nd 7-0
Colleen Ingram, Secretary
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: December 6, 2021, December 13, 2021, January 10, 2022 and January 24, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
DEI Minutes
PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

PGCC 3-2-2022

Agenda No. 10 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Director Public Works
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Museum Board Minutes: February 9, 2021, May 11, 2021, and November 30, 2021
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
May 11, 2021 Museum Board Minutes
August 10, 2021 Museum Board Minutes
February 9, 2021 Museum Board Minutes
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

MUSEUM BOARD

REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.

Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions.

CALL TO ORDER

Present: Chair Lisa Max, Vice Chair David Laws, Secretary Broeck Oder, and Board Member Chris Patton and Board member nominee Calvin Tom ; also Museum Executive Director Carla Bitter, Pacific Grove Volunteer Program Director Amy Colony, Pacific Grove Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi, Museum Collections and Research Manager Nate King, and President of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Tama Olver.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda approval motion seconded and passed unanimously.

2. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
There were no commission and staff announcements/comments.

3. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Council Liaison announcements.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the general public.

5. MUSEUM BOARD MINUTES
Museum Board member nominee Calvin Tom corrected the spelling of his last name, which contains no letter “h.” The amended Minutes for the February 9, 2021 meeting were approved.

REGULAR AGENDA

6. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
There were no City Council Liaison comments.

7. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Museum Director’s Monthly Reports for January, 2020 through June, 2020.

Because she has just assumed her position, Museum Director Carla Bitter requested that President of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History PGCC 3-2-2022

2 Tama Olver be allowed to conduct this portion of the meeting for purposes of Ms. Bitter observing the process. There were no objections. Ms. Olver reported that the Museum re-opened on April 9, 2021, operating on a four (4) days per week schedule, with hours each day from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Ms. Olver noted that the Museum’s on-line programs continued even as the Museum re-opened physically. The Museum carefully observed official limits on numbers of persons in the Museum and also utilized hybrid on-line processes as well. A key goal at this time is to rebuild revenue. Chair Max called for public comments, but there were none. Chair Max then called for questions or comments from Museum Board members. Chair Max inquired from what parts of the community or country museum visitors originate, and Executive Director Bitter said that a substantial number of visitors are not local, but further analysis of visitor demographics will help evaluate whether the hybrid program should be continued. Executive Director Bitter noted she is very impressed with and proud of the Museum’s Internet outreach.

Museum Board Vice Chair Laws inquired about any current financial information. Board of Trustees President Olver noted that will be a key subject at the Museum Board’s August meeting. Early figures can be referenced in recent reports to the City Council.

Museum Board member Patton asked if a Zoom program from the Point Pinos Lighthouse is possible; Deputy Public Works Director Halabi noted, “It can be explored.” There was no public comment.

B. Deputy Public Works Director Halabi gave an update on the Point Pinos Lighthouse, noting that Saturday, May 8, 2021 saw resumption of exterior tours of the Lighthouse, with forty-four (44) visitors. These tours will continue from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM each Saturday in May. It is to be determined whether there will be more scheduled hours added in June. There was no public comment. Member Patton said he had served as a docent at the Lighthouse on May 8 and noted the exterior tours generated significant social media comments, which he, and everyone at the meeting, found “very heartening.” Deputy Public Works Director Halabi noted that inside access at the Lighthouse is still “up in the air, and Member Patton surmised that the pandemic will likely have to be over before the interior of the Lighthouse can re-open to the public.

C. The Collections Care report came from Museum Collections and Research Manager Nate King. Regarding the year from July, 2019 to June, 2020, Manager King reported 3,353 (three thousand, three hundred, fifty-three) items inventoried. In addition, 9,859 (nine thousand, eight hundred, fifty-nine) image files were added to the data base; 163 (one hundred sixty-three) new records went into the catalog, and zero (-0-) records were removed. 1,032 objects are newly available for viewing on-line, and more will follow.

There was no public comment. Museum Board member nominee Tom asked about the Museum’s backlog in terms of the cataloging process. Manager King noted his predecessor as Manager had estimated a ten (10) year rotating catalog inventory, meaning the inventory would start at the beginning with the end in ten (10) years, at which point the inventory process would immediately begin again at the beginning of the inventory.

Manager King noted there are many items to be cataloged, and, with his other responsibilities, he does not have a significant amount of time to devote to inventory, but he feels he is on track to meet the estimated schedule. Manager King estimates somewhere between fifty thousand (50,000) to sixty thousand (60,000) items are PGCC 3-2-2022

3 currently not cataloged. Museum Director Bitter added that it is a priority for her, and she is “eager” to get started as she sees it as an item of “growing importance.” She commended Manager King, noting he is doing a great job. Museum Board Chair Max asked if the November report to the Museum Board will cover from June, 2020 to June, 2021, and Manager King noted the November meeting would be perfect.

D. Under the Performance Metrics report, at Museum Executive Director Bitter’s request, Board President Olver reported she proceeded by just “carrying things forward,” doing “what was done previously.” President Olver was happy to answer any questions from the Board, and noted she has a few recommendation for the consideration of Executive Director Bitter regarding further improving the informative and user-friendly qualities of the website. Executive Director Bitter concurred the analysis can aid maximization of what the Museum can provide, especially as things get back to normal. It will be key to note if the on-line popularity continues to be strong after the Museum fully re-opens.

Member Patton inquired about “bird adoption;” Manager King noted much information in that realm is available on the Museum’s website. Member Patton further expressed support for keeping the on-line presence as an effective form of outreach. Vice Chair Laws noted that the pandemic lockdown complicates matters, making it more difficult to discern meaningful trend information. Chair Max asked if the format change(s), if any, would be executed. Deputy Director Halabi said that making the suggestions directly to the Museum staff is optimal. There is nothing in this realm in the agreement between the Museum and the City, so it can be done with relative ease. The Museum staff can work up a draft that the Board could discuss and upon which the Board could solicit public feedback. It was agreed this should be on the August agenda.

E. Regarding post-pandemic Museum Board meeting frequency, per the request from Mayor Peake to all city boards, Chair Max indicated she favored continuation of the Museum Board’s quarterly schedule. Mayor Peake has previously said he believes the Museum Board has an effective meeting schedule. All Board members agreed, so it was moved, voted, and recorded that the Museum Board unanimously supports the continuation of its long-time quarterly schedule of meetings in February, May, August, and November. The Museum Board’s next meeting will be on August 10, 2021, at 5:00 pm.

Meeting adjourned at 5:54 PM.

Submitted by Broeck Oder, Secreatary
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

MUSEUM BOARD

REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, August 10th, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.

Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions.

CALL TO ORDER

Present: Chair Lisa Max, Vice Chair David Laws, Secretary Broeck Oder, and Board Members Chris Patton and Calvin Tom; also Museum Executive Director Carla Bitter, Pacific Grove Volunteer Program Director Amy Colony, Pacific Grove Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi, and City Council Liaison Joe Amelio.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Agenda approval motion seconded and passed unanimously.

2. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
There were no commission and staff announcements/comments.

3. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison Amelio informed the Board that the City Council voted 4-3 to hire someone to review the City water plan. Mr. Amelio also noted the Council awarded a contract to implement electronic traffic citations for the Pacific Grove Police Department; an officer will be able to record and transmit a citation immediately to both the Police Department and to the courts, which puts greater efficiency into the process. Liaison Amelio noted the Council approved a management plan for George Washington Park and placed a temporary moratorium on new matters to be considered by the Council. The Council also heard a presentation on regional matters, which is available on recording to the public. Finally, Council Liaison Amelio noted that a performance evaluation process had been approved for $20,000.00

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments from the general public.

5. APPROVAL OF MUSEUM BOARD MINUTES
Museum Board member Calvin Tom noted the May meeting minutes of the Board referred to him as a nominee; the Minutes should show that he had already been sworn in by the time of the meting. Amended Minutes for the May meeting will be sent to the proper individuals. The amended minutes were moved, seconded, and unanimously approved.

REGULAR AGENDA

6. Museum Director’s Monthly Reports
Museum Executive Director Carla Bitter reported that by June 15, 2021, the Museum was PGCC 3-2-2022

2 operating at 100% of its allowed capacity on its five (5) days per week schedule. Over six thousand (6,000) visitors, mostly adults, came to the Museum; membership in the Museum is also up. Director Bitter also noted that the Museum is looking to hire four (4) individuals, a controller and three replacements for departed staff. Director Bitter also noted that the Director of Exhibits and Collections position has been funded for the next year. In addition, two (2) new exhibits were open as of July 16; the highlighted exhibit until September 12 will be the climate change exhibit.

Director Bitter also noted new insurance for Museum personnel; a new area of focus will also be injury prevention and safety training. The “big ticket item” Director Bitter next addressed was “How to be better stewards of 60,000 items.” Among the goals are improved environmental control and care of materials; a diversity/equity plan, which was being initially implemented at this time; and a new capital campaign for the Children’s Gallery. Director Bitter also reported that five hundred (500) volunteer hours had been given to the Museum during this just-ended reporting period. In response to a question, Director Bitter noted that approximately 50% of the Museum’s visitors during this period had been from “in- [Monterey] county,” along with approximately 50% being from “out of the county.” Director Bitter also noted that the members of the Executive Board for the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History are President Tama Olver; Vice President Erin Myers Madeira; Treasurer John B. O’Sullivan; and Secretary Julie Veitch. Director Bitter also noted that the Capital Campaign has been completed, and thus everything regarding the Museum is in very promising shape, especially in light of the nearly year-and-a-half of coping with the challenges posed by the Covid situation.

There were no public comments. On the Covid aspect, Museum Board Vice Chair Laws inquired about the Museum’s coping methods, and Director Bitter noted that with one hundred (100) visitors per day, masks were consistently worn at the Museum. Board Member Calvin Tom reported having been in the Museum during the week of August 2-8 and observed that everyone was cooperating with the mask requirement and that the spacing guidelines were being carefully observed by visitors and staff.

7. Public Works Deputy Director Update on the Point Pinos Lighthouse Deputy Director of Public Works Halabi reminded all that the outdoor portion of the Lighthouse reserve was re-opened on May 8 and available with docents from 1:00 to 3:00 PM each Saturday since then. On May 30, Sundays were added to the program so that now the outside of the Lighthouse property is open with docents from 1:00 to 3:00 PM on both days of the weekend. The next immediate goal is to re-open the gift shop at the Lighthouse, especially in light of the healthy visitor numbers: 478 in May, 765 in June, and 764 in July. The thinking at this time is that the current construction on the Lighthouse property will be done in early October. Also underway is the cleaning of textiles and the “Docent Diary,” a quarterly newsletter for the Lighthouse which launched on July 1. There was no public comment.

Board Member Patten noted it is challenging to get docents to participate in Lighthouse needs beyond simply talking to visitors. Efforts to solicit some helpful thoughts and feedback from docents has met with minimal (only three) docent responses. The docents seem to think their sole function is to be on the property for two hours and then leave, so expanding the docents/visitors interface is a significant need which would be optimized by docent participation in the “creation” of program improvements. Further thought will be devoted to this realm.

PGCC 3-2-2022

3 8. Audited Financials Summary
Executive Director Bitter reported that the auditors thoroughly examined items from December to August 1 and while they found “No really big red flags,” the realities of Covid left the bookkeeping aspects a bit loose, so some “tightening” will be in order as things commence a return to normal. An example is the lack of consistent reconciling of the Morgan Stanley account the Museum has; in that realm, “significant improvement [is] needed” for an “A to Z grant tracking process.” Director Bitter is confident the auditors did a thorough job, and that the Museum will implement recommendations in an effective and timely manner. Board Vice Chair Laws noted that “our museum” is doing better than “most museums” in this realm during the Covid situation, Director Bitter noted some generous gifts to the Museum from both the City and donors; combined with austerity measures, the museum remains in a very good state of financial affairs, considering the pandemic, noting “good cash positions [and] portfolio [of investments].

There were no public comments, so Member Tom inquired regarding “restricted funds. Director Bitter noted the endowment is “harvested a bit” each year when it is showing a profit, which it usually does. Director Bitter also noted that the meeting with the Morgan Stanley team went very well, and the thinking was that some more “long-term” investments could be possible going forward.

9. 2021-2022 Budget
Director Bitter said there are several items she considers her “big ones.” First is that the Museum’s cash position is good at this time, but reasonable precautions and preparations should be made to provide for a possible new shut-down if Covid revives. Secondly, Director Bitter noted that the values of a museum are reflected by “where the money goes”. Director Bitter would like to devote more funs to assessing and maintaining the collection. Collection assessment and accreditation will be the two biggest issues in the immediate future, so investments in personnel are a high priority. Thirdly, Director Bitter would like to have more in-person presentations, but those, naturally, entail expenditures. Fourthly, Director Bitter said that, at this relatively late point in the year, Museum staff will be taking a hard financial “look” at where things are in December, and either continue forward or “hold steady.”
Director Bitter also noted that two large, fairly recent donations were not reflected in the current presentation, but will be part of the going-forward decision making. She is also giving thought to the donor engagement strategy by making more use of small groups, specific collections, etc.

Director Bitter also noted that the Museum needs a better workshop, as there is insufficient space for serious building, painting, etc., so that aspect will need careful evaluation.

There were no public comments. It was further noted that where some items are placed in the budget/bookkeeping had to be adjusted, with several things going under IT, explaining the figures reflected. Member Patten volunteered to assist as “Safety Officer” in planning/implementing changes, one example being the workshop and kitchen cannot occupy the same space. Director Bitter thanked Member Patten for his generosity and will call upon him if necessary.

Next Meeting of the Museum Board --- November 9, 2021
Meeting adjourned at 5:58 PM.

PGCC 3-2-2022

4 Submitted by Broeck Oder, Secretary
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 ACTION MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

MUSEUM BOARD

REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 9, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.

Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions.

CALL TO ORDER

Present: Chair Lisa Max, Vice Chair David Laws, Secretary Broeck Oder, and Board Member Chris Patton; City Council Liaison Joe Amelio; and Deputy Public Works Director Joyce Halabi; Chair Max noted new, but not yet sworn, Board member Calvin Thom will be on-board by May.

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Max noted two minor clarifications, those being the election of officers for 2021-2022, and that the Planning Calendar is in Museum purview. Agenda approved by consensus.

2. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Deputy Public Works Director Halabi had no announcements.

3. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Council Liaison Amelio checked with Chamber of Commerce president Moe Ammar and confirmed the Point Pinos Lighthouse is mentioned in the Chamber’s free booklet for visitors; City Council Liaison Amelio reported that at the previous City Council meeting H & R Associates are continuing work on the ATC project and that the Traffic Commission made several recommendations regarding maintaining traffic markings on Ocean View Boulevard; City Council Liaison Amelio also indicated the Council reviewed “many other” items during the Council meeting.

4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment or other public communications to the Board. Viewing the meeting on Zoom were Tama Olver and Craig [no last name?].

5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The minutes of the regular Board meeting on November 11, 2020 were approved.

B. The minutes of the special Board meeting on January 19, 2021 were amended to note that most viewers of the Lighthouse website view only the first page of material on the website.

Both sets of minutes were moved, seconded, and approved unanimously.

PGCC 3-2-2022

2 6. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Acting Executive Director Tama Olver discussed the Museum Director’s monthly reports for November and December, 2020. Ms. Olver noted these reports are posted on the Museum website for the public to view, and also reported that the Museum is actively looking for a new Executive Director. Ms. Olver indicated as well that new exhibits will not be debuted until April and that the Museum is getting “unprecedented” on-line demand from local schools for various resources, assistance, and information. Ms. Olver also noted that the Museum’s interface with Public Works is working well now, and she expressed appreciation for the training assistance rendered by Public Works to Museum staff. Ms. Olver noted that the re-opening of the Museum is still unknown as Monterey County needs to be in the “Red zone” for two weeks before that can happen at the level of 25% of normal capacity; the Museum is considering the possibilities of a five-day week, at least at first, when the Museum re-opens. Lastly, Ms. Olver noted that various items belonging to the Museum but not appropriate to its mission are the subject of deaccession discussions with City Manager Ben Harvey (see also “New Business-B”). There was no public comment on Acting Executive Director Olver’s report.

B. Public Works Deputy Director Joyce Halabi gave an update on the Point Pinos Lighthouse. Ms. Halabi affirmed Ms. Olver’s report about the re-opening of the Museum and the current COVID status of Monterey County, which still remains in the most restrictive level.

In reference to re-opening the Museum, Ms. Halabi directed attention to Attachment 1, “Point Pinos Lighthouse Web Stats.” Board Member Patton suggested that “Google users” on that document be amended to “Website statistics.”
C. Museum Board Chair Max summarized the Board Chair’s Annual Report, and suggested all review the accompanying package. There was no public comment, nor were there any comments questions, or discussion points from Board members.

7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Officer elections were held for the 2021-2022 year. Lisa Max was re-elected as Board Chair; David Laws was re-elected as Board Vice Chair; Broeck Oder was re-elected as Board Secretary.

B. Regarding de-accession of items from the Museum’s collection, Ms. Halabi drew the attention of the Board to the document for review. There was no public comment. Vice Chair Laws inquired about the storage and curating of items, and Ms. Halabi noted that the City makes such decision in accord with in-place agreements with the Museum. Ms. Olver noted that if the Museum is requested to store items, it does so. Board Member Patton noted that none of the items were “needed” at the Lighthouse. Ms. Olver noted that after any de-accession, the Museum asks the City for directions; Ms. Halabi said she was willing to follow up with the Heritage Society in case it is interested in any items the Museum de-accesses. Chair Max moved the Board recommend de-accession of the noted items; Vice Chair Laws suggested amending the motion to include City notification of the Heritage Society; the amended motion was passed by the Board four ayes to zero nays.

C. The Museum Board’s Planning Calendar was reviewed, and regular meetings will be held on the second Tuesday of the months February, May, August, and November, 2021. The collection PGCC 3-2-2022

3 care reports and performance metrics were moved from this (February 9, 2021) meeting to the May 11, 2021 meeting. There was no public comment. Chair Max moved that the Board approve the calendar wit the 2020 collection care and performance metrics moved to the May, 2021 meeting; Vice Chair Laws seconded the motion, which passed 4 ayes to 0 nays. Chair Max noted she is receptive to getting the Museum Board agenda to the public sooner; Ms. Halabi noted that the City’s website is being upgraded, and the upgrades will facilitate advancements in this realm.

Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:50 PM.

Submitted by Broeck Oder, Secretary
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Vacation of Excess Right-of-Way on Sloat Avenue Pursuant to §§ 8300-8368 of the California Streets and Highways Code This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

The City and the ATC project developer are in negotiations on a real property agreement that would 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
PPT
PGCC 3-2-2022

Attachment 1
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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

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
PGCC 3-2-2022

Exhibit A
PGCC 3-2-2022

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
PGCC 3-2-2022

Exhibit B
PGCC 3-2-2022

&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
PGCC 3-2-2022

City of Pacific Grove
City Council
Febuary 16, 2022
Sloat Avenue ROW Easement
Vacation
PGCC 3-2-2022

ROW Vacation Process
 Governed by California Streets and Highway Code
 Two-Step Process – both are public hearings

1. City Council adoption of a Notice of Intent to Vacate ROW

2. City Council adoption of Resolution Vacating the ROW PGCC 3-2-2022

Sloat Ave. ROW Vacation – Background and Prior Actions
Date Milestone
1/12/2022 City Council Approved the ATC Hotel Project, Certified the Project’s EIR, and Adopted a Resolution of Intent to Vacate 2/2/2022 City Council opened and continued the Public Hearing for the Resolution to Vacate the Sloat Avenue ROW easement
2/16/2022 Continued Public Hearing and Consideration of Resolution to Vacate Excess ROW
PGCC 3-2-2022

Sloat Avenue ROW Vacation
 Vacation of Sloat Avenue ROW between Eardley and Dewey Avenues  Vacation of ROW is conditioned on several items: final approval of project’s permits, satisfactory plan for utility connections of existing public and private utilities, including those for the Monterey Aquarium’s properties along the western end of the ROW segment
PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem and Amy Tomlinson, Councilmember MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: City Council Salary and Health Benefits This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

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 $102,787 for the remainder of Fiscal Year 22-23, or less, depending on the City Council's optional participation level.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

PGCC 3-2-2022

1. Take no action.

2. Propose alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Updated Fiscal Impact Section
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). If the measure is successful, the estimated salary-related costs for the remainder of Fiscal Year 22/23 is estimated to be $13,182, with an annual cost of $22,849. Depending on the participation level, the costs of the optional health benefit for Fiscal Year 22-23 could be up to $89,605, with a maximum annual cost of $155,316.

The combined salary and health benefit increase for Fiscal Year 22-23 is estimated to be $102,787; with an annual cost of $178,165. This amount could be less, depending on the level of enrollment in the optional health benefit.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
City Council Salary and Health Benefit Ordinance
PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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 PGCC 3-2-2022

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: Laurel O'Halloran, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 23.73.050 – Time Limits and Extensions
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance to Amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter

23.73.050 - Time Limits and Extensions, and direct publication of a summary of the ordinance as approved by the City Attorney.

DISCUSSION
Since 2009, all vacant properties throughout the City that do not already have a water meter cannot be provided one by California American Water (Cal-Am). Cal-Am has been operating under a de facto moratorium since the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued a cease-and-desist order (CDO) reducing Cal-Am Carmel River water diversions thereby limiting the utility's ability to set new water meters on vacant properties. As such, the City maintains a Water Wait List (WWL) for vacant properties where owners are unable to purchase water entitlement.

There are eleven (11) vacant lots on the WWL due to the property owner's current inability to receive a new meter. In August 2021 the City Council adopted Ordinance 21-022, placing a temporary moratorium on new Community Development applications for projects not able to obtain water permits by reason of the CDO. While this is helpful for preventing new applicants from being caught in a situation of expiring Architectural Permits (AP), it does not help people already on the WWL.

At the January 19, 2022 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to amend to the City’s Municipal Code Title 23.73.050 (c) to allow a permit to be considered valid for five years with a one-time five year renewal option.

This process would create a 10-year lifespan for an Architectural Permit (AP) that is also on the WWL; the applicant would be able to apply directly for a building permit at the time the property is issued a water meter within that lifespan. As with all building permits, Planning staff would conduct a plan check review to ensure compliance with the approved discretionary permit. If there are substantial changes to the original approved AP, the City may require an application for an amendment to the planning approval.

PGCC 3-2-2022

Staff recommends amending the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 23.73.050 with the addition of all text shown in bold, italic, underscored text (bold, italic, underscored text), as follows:
(c) Extensions of Time by Chief Planner. The chief planner is authorized to renew any community development permit that would otherwise expire after one year. Renewals shall be for one year with a maximum of two renewals. If the property is on the Water Wait List as described in Chapter 11.68 PGMC, the community development permit shall be considered valid for five (5) years with a one-time five (5) year renewal option.

OPTIONS

1. The Council could make further amendments to the proposed ordinance.

2. The Council could not adopt amendments and continue to rely on the existing chapter.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Allocation and/or sales of potable water to property owners for property improvements may result in increased property tax revenue for the City. Potential financial benefits include increased sales tax from commercial projects, increased sales taxes from commercial leases on City owned property and increased tourism due to improvements, and potential increased revenue from higher assessed values of residential projects. An update on water entitlement sales is provided as part of the Long-term Financial Planning agenda item.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Transparency, Accountability and Communication: Implement programs, processes, revisions, and training to improve and advance the City's efforts.

Attachments
Draft Ordinance
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 ORDINANCE NO. 22-___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING CHAPTER

23.73.050 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S TIME LIMITS AND EXTENSIONS FOR ARCHITECTRUAL PERMITS ON THE CITY’S WATER WAIT LIST
WHEREAS, this Ordinance amends PGMC Section 23.73.050, entitled “Time Limits and Extensions;”
WHEREAS, since the establishment of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) cease-and-desist order (CDO) against California American Water (Cal-Am) on October 20, 2009, owners of vacant properties within the Cal-Am services area have been unable to obtain a water meter necessary to the development of their property; WHEREAS, in 2019, the City’s Local Water Project (LWP) became operational allowing the City to sell water entitlements under certain conditions to those properties with existing meters; WHEREAS, in an effort to establish a list of future water purchasers who could be “entitled” to the water allotment established through the operation of the LWP, the City created a Water Wait List (WWL) which has been updated and administered by Community Development Department (CDD) staff since its inception;
WHEREAS, several owners of vacant properties received approvals of discretionary Architectural Permits (AP) during this time;
WHEREAS, per PGMC Section 23.73.050, discretionary approvals are allowed to be extended twice, each for one (1) year. As a result, there are 7 expired permits on the WWL; WHEREAS, given the cost associated with the preparation of plans and permit fees, at the January 19, 2022 City Council meeting City Staff presented the City Council with options to assist the property owners who are on the WWL.

WHEREAS, at the January 19th Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to amend to the City’s Municipal Code to allow a permit to be considered valid for five years with a one-time five year renewal option.

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.;
WHEREAS, amendment of PGMC Section 23.73.050 pertaining to the Time Limits and Extensions will not result in a significant impact to the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

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.

PGCC 3-2-2022

2 SECTION 2. Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 23.73.050 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:
…
(b) Extensions of Time by Review Authority. The initial review authority is authorized to extend the period for use of a community development permit up to two years from the date of approval, as an express provision at the time of approval, where it is anticipated that the processing of other governmental approvals related to the project will delay start of construction beyond the year. (c) Extensions of Time by Chief Planner. The chief planner is authorized to renew any community development permit that would otherwise expire after one year.

Renewals shall be for one year with a maximum of two renewals. If the property is on the Water Wait List as described in Chapter 11.68 PGMC, the community development permit shall be considered valid for five (5) years with a one-time five (5) year renewal option.
(d) Action on Extension Requests. An application for a time extension shall be made prior to the permit expiration date. If a finding is made that the applicant could not have avoided the delay, the application shall be granted up to the maximum allowable under subsection (c) of this section.
…
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 ______ day of _________, 2022, by the following vote:

PGCC 3-2-2022

3 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST DATED: ______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PGCC 3-2-2022

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:

Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager; Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: March 2, 2022
SUBJECT: Local Water Project Business Plan Peer Review This item was continued from the February 16, 2022 meeting.

CEQA: Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDATION
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.

DISCUSSION
The Local Water Project (The Plant) is owned by the City of Pacific Grove, who orchestrated the financing and construction of the treatment plant. The Plant is operated and maintained under contract by a third-party vendor, PercWater. The Plant was constructed to ensure long term vitality of the Pacific Grove Golf Links and El Carmelo Cemetery by replacing the potable water source with recycled water for irrigation purposes.

Making the switch to recycled water significantly reduced the City’s demand for potable water (approximately 95 acre feet annually), allowed for the repurposing of an abandoned City facility (the former sewer treatment plant at 1313 Oceanview Blvd.), and created a recycled water source for other City facilities and 3rd party customers. To this end, the plant can produce up to .25 Million Gallons of water daily and 125 acre feet annually.

To construct the plant, the City secured $2.4 million in grants and $5.2 million in low-interest loans from the State of California. Total construction cost was $7.6 million. With the reduction in potable water use created by switching the irrigation of the golf course and cemetery over to recycled water, the State allowed the City to sell entitlement water. It was determined that 47.88 acre feet were eligible for entitlement sale, with a price established by the City Council.

The Plant currently operates at a loss. On average, sales of recycled water have totaled approximately $535,000 annually, while The Plant operation and debt service costs total $740,000. Changes to the contract operation of The Plant would not likely yield significant savings, and additional customers of significant scope are not foreseeable at the current time. Water entitlements are recorded as an asset in the City's General Fund. The corresponding entitlement sales, which are currently deposited in the City’s General Fund, could be transferred to the plant’s enterprise fund to assist with bridge funding; PGCC 3-2-2022

however this resource is finite and there is no guarantee of annual sales. From a sustainability perspective, long-term solutions are needed to not only cover operating costs, but also identified capital improvements. A repayment plan also needs to be established for the $600,000 Sewer Fund Interfund Loan.

One potential solution that would allow The Plant to be self-sufficient would be to increase or “ramp-up” the rates charged to all customers to allow for full recovery of operating costs and plan for capital improvements. This includes increasing the rates for the LWP’s largest customer – CourseCo., who operates the Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Links through a City contract. One-time water entitlement sales could be used to repay the Sewer Fund Interfund Loan to avoid an additional impact to the rate structure; and/or could be used to supplement rates during the ramp-up period.

City staff presented potential adjustments to the CourseCo lease at the City Council's August 4, 2021 closed session meeting, to receive authorization to begin negotiations with CourseCo, in an attempt to balance Plant expenditures with increased revenues. The City Council directed staff to retain a third party vendor to review Plant expenditures and revenues and evaluate a break even cost analysis.

At the October 20, 2021 City Council Meeting, the City approved an agreement with DTA to evaluate Plant revenues and expenditures; and conduct a break even cost analysis. Other options presented included initiating a rate study or working with a CPA firm to conduct an Agreed Upon Procedures Review. Staff worked with DTA to review the Draft Local Water Project Business Plan (Attachment 1), as well as the information included in the report. DTA presented the peer review memo to City staff for review dated January 7, 2022 (Attachment 2). It also included updated information for actual revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 20/21 to assist in evaluating operations. For consistency purposes, the Draft Local Water Project Business Plan includes the original information from August 4, 2021; and an updated Scenario IV to reflect the actual Fiscal Year 20/21 data. This provides an additional data point for assessing LWP operations, as well as reflects operating levels under drought conditions. The primary difference between the City's and the DTA's scenario, is that the City is assuming water entitlements will be used to assist in supplementing a ramp-up of rates, as well as a loan repayment source.

DTA has determined after review of the City’s Business Plan and rate analysis that the City’s analysis of revenues and costs, debt service and available fund balances on an annual basis is rational, supportable and is consistent with industry practice. The City’s financial model follows closely with the recommendations of American Water Works Association (AWWA) Manual of Water Supply Practices.

Furthermore, DTA has determined that to achieve a sustained, breakeven operation, City must impose steep increases in early years to reach a rate level of over $0.03 per gallon with modest increases thereafter.

With these validations, Staff requests the Council authorize negotiations to begin with CourseCo, using the breakeven cost analysis presented in the DTA memo as a basis for the discussions. Any updates regarding negotiations and proposed adjustments to the lease will be provided to Council in closed session.

Staff is also recommending using the proceeds from the $625,187 promissory note to repay the Sewer Fund Interfund Loan. This note is anticipated to be paid in Fiscal Year 22/23. The use of an alternate repayment source would provide the LWP with a "fresh start". The interest rate on the loan would be based on the percentage earned by the City's investment portfolio from the time the funds were transferred to the LWP Fund to the time of the repayment. The principal would be repaid upon receipt of the promissory note; and interest would be paid to the Sewer Fund at the close of each quarter, with a retroactive payment made for the periods that have elapsed. This would make the Sewer Fund "whole" PGCC 3-2-2022

by restoring all amounts owed to the Sewer Fund, as well as providing an equivalent amount of interest earnings. Approval of the loan terms will also allow the City to formally book the repayment plan and disclose it in the upcoming audited financial statements.

Council may also request that staff update the scenarios included on Page 14 of the Business Plan to reflect the Fiscal Year 20/21 actual amounts; or the complete plan to assist with decision-making. The original plan was not revised to maintain consistency with the peer review process.

OPTIONS

1. Provide alternate direction

2. Request staff to update the complete LWP Business Plan and related scenarios to reflect the Fiscal Year 20/21 actual amounts.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact by receiving this report. Any potential lease adjustments, the development of a repayment plan, or amendments to the budget will be brought back to the City Council at a later date.

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

Attachments
Local Water Project Business Plan
DTA memo
PPT
PGCC 3-2-2022

1 PACIFIC GROVE LOCAL WATER PROJECT BUSINESS PLAN

CITY HALL
300 FOREST AVENUE
PACIFIC GROVE CA 93950
WWW.CITYOFPACIFICGROVE.ORG

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
1313 OCEAN VIEW BOULEVARD
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950
Prepared by
Daniel Gho: Public Works Director
Tori Hannah: Administrative Services Director
July 21, 2021
(Includes the original Scenario IV and a revision to reflect FY 20/21 Actual revenues and expenditures) PGCC 3-2-2022

2 Executive Summary
The Local Water Project (The Plant) is owned by the City of Pacific Grove, who orchestrated the financing and construction of the treatment plant. The Plant is operated and maintained under contracted by a third-party vendor, PercWater. The Plant was constructed to ensure long term vitality of the Pacific Grove Golf Links and El Carmelo Cemetery by replacing the potable water source with recycled water for irrigation purposes.

Making the switch to recycled water significantly reduced the City’s demand for potable water (approximately 95 acre feet annually), allowed for the repurposing of an abandoned City facility (the former sewer treatment plant at 1313 Oceanview Blvd.), and created a recycled water source for other City facilities and 3rd party customers. To this end, the plant can produce up to .25 Million Gallons of water daily and 125 acre feet annually.

To construct the plant, the City secured $2.4 million in grants and $5.2 million in low-interest loans from the State of California. Total construction cost was $7.6 million. With the reduction in potable water use created by switching the irrigation of the golf course and cemetery over to recycled water, the State allowed the City to sell entitlement water. It was determined that 47.88 acre feet were eligible for entitlement sale, with a price established by the City Council. Currently, the established price for entitlement water is $175k/acre foot, a price that is available through the end of December, 2021.

The Plant currently operates at a loss. On average, sales of recycled water have totaled approximately $510,000 annually, while The Plant operation and debt service costs total $740,000 (1)
. Changes to the contract operation of The Plant would not likely yield significant savings, and additional customers of significant scope are not forseeable at the current time. Entitlement water sales, which currently are deposited to the City’s General Fund, could be deposited instead to the plant’s enterprise fund. But water entitlement sales do not yield a consistent and steady stream of income. While there has been at least one significant sale of entitlement water (promissory note in the amount of approximately $600k), and another potential promissory note (pending City Council review and approval) of approximately $1.2 million on the horizon, it is not sufficient to supplement long-term operations, or use as set aside funds for identified capital improvements.

PGCC 3-2-2022

3 One potential solution that would allow The Plant to be self-sufficient would be to increase the rates charged to all customers to allow for full recovery of operating costs and plan for capital improvements. This includes increasing the rates for the LWP’s largest customer – CourseCo., who operates the Pacific Grove Municipal Golf Links through a City contract; and the city-owned Cemetery.
(1) This amount reflects the prior year and FY 20/21 budgeted revenues and expenditures. The preliminary revenues are trending approximately $65,000 higher than anticipated, while expenditure accruals are still pending.

PGCC 3-2-2022

4 Table of Contents

1. The Business
a. Description of Business 5
b. Competition 5
c. Marketing/ Customers 6
d. Operating Procedures 7
e. Personnel 7
f. Insurances 8

2. Financial Data
a. Current Fiscal Conditions 8
b. Cash Flow 9
c. Debt 10
d. Capital Equipment 11
e. Recycled Water Rates 12
f. Alternatives 13

3. Recommendations 14

4. Appendix 17
a. Engineer’s Equipment Replacement Schedule
b. CalAm Water Company Rate Schedule
c. Sample Operating Statement, Scenario IV
d. Revised Sample Operating Statement, Scenario IV
(Reflects Fiscal Year 20/21 Actual revenues and expenditures, with updates to consumption in the forecast years to reflect the revised three-year average) PGCC 3-2-2022

5 THE BUSINESS
Description of Business
The City of Pacific Grove (City) has developed the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (PGLWP).

The primary purpose of the project is to produce and distribute high quality recycled water to replace potable water used for non-potable water demands. The PGLWP consisted of the construction of a sewer diversion structure, a 0.25 million gallons per day satellite recycled water treatment plant (SRWTP), waste pump station and force main pipeline, recycled water pump station, approximately 0.50 miles (2,800 linear feet (LF)) of 8-inch pipeline to convey recycled water to existing irrigation systems, connections to two public restroom for toilet flushing, and onsite retrofits required for the use of recycled water and 1,100 feet of 1-inch diameter potable water pipeline. The project can serve up to 125 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water primarily to the City of Pacific Grove Golf Links, Point Pinos Lighthouse and El Carmelo Cemetery. The predominant use of recycled water is for landscape irrigation. Irrigation occurs primarily at night to maximize water management efficiency and minimize public contact.

Competition
The City of Pacific Grove is located on the tip of the Monterey Peninsula on the Central California Coast. The region is dependent on local rainfall for replenishment of its water supplies. Rainfall patterns have resulted in severe droughts. Near coastal groundwater pumping has resulted in increasing total dissolved solids concentrations, seawater intrusion and overdraft of the local aquifers. Diversions and pumping of the under drain of the Carmel River has put critical riparian habitat, as well as federal and state listed endangered and threatened species, at risk.

The City’s water purveyor, California American Water Company (CAW), is now subject to pumping restrictions pursuant to State Water Resourced Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95-10, the related issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) by the SWRCB (Order WR2009-0060), and their reduced pumping of the Seaside Groundwater Basin (SGWB), mandated by its adjudication.

PGCC 3-2-2022

6 The PGLWP has replaced City irrigation and other demands, that was once met with potable sources, with non-potable supplies creating a new water supply offset up to 125 AFY of potable water. The potable water offset would assist CAW in meeting its obligations to find a replacement to its use of water from the Carmel River and reduce pumping in the SGWB. The PGLWP can reduce the operational production of CAW’s up to 125 AFY. The current Cal Am cost for water and delivery for irrigation uses is approximately .029 per gallon, when all surcharges, fees, and taxes are included. The PGLWP is selling reclaimed water at .0173 per gallon, or $5,637 per acre foot.

Marketing / Customers
Sites may use recycled water for a variety of uses approved by the State Department of Public Health. These include but are not limited to: landscape irrigation; agricultural irrigation; construction uses such as dust control, soil compaction, and backfill consolidation; commercial/industrial purposes such as cooling towers, boiler feed, air conditioning, commercial laundries, commercial car washes, concrete mixing, process rinsing and textile dying; landscape impoundments such as fountains and water features; and toilet and urinal flushing in nonresidential facilities.

The PGLWP is sized to serve up to 125 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water, mostly to the City of Pacific Grove Golf Links, Point Pinos Lighthouse landscaping and El Carmelo Cemetery.

Additionally, the PGLWP provides reclaimed water for construction truck fill and toilet flushing at Crespi Pond bathroom and the golf course restroom on the 5th hole of the links (toilet flushing included in golf totals). The City of Pacific Grove is the responsible party for the distribution and use of the recycled water at the customer sites.

Below is a summary of water sold since the plant began operations:

Acre Feet of Water Sold per Calendar Year
Location 2018 2019 2020 (Jan - Dec)
Golf Course 80.23 77.09 72.13
Cemetery/ Lighthouse 14.28 17.1 19.17
Truck Fill 1.3 1.52 2.07
Total 95.81 95.71 93.37
PGCC 3-2-2022

7 The project was sized to deliver up to 125 Acre feet of reclaimed water annually, and as noted above there are numerous uses for reclaimed water, but the challenge is increasing the volume of reclaimed water sales, to maximize the plants capacity, and produce the 125 acre feet. The City is constrained by steep capital costs associated with extending underground infrastructure to expand reclaimed water use to additional sites.

To efficiently expand the PGLWP end users would have to be within proximity of the golf course to keep infrastructure delivery costs down. The golf course has reclaimed pipe running within its 65 acres of turf. Parks that could realize the use of reclaimed water would be Perkins Park, Lovers Point Park and Caledonia Park. Expansion to these parks would only generate an additional 5-6 acre feet of reclaimed water sales annually, but the reduction of potable water for irrigation and not having to rely on the potable source to irrigate these parks has significant environmental and sustainability aspects. Additionally, the potable offset with any expansion, may generate an increase of potable water entitlements.

Location Distance to connect Cost of
expansion @
$100 L.F
Estimated
revenues
annually
Lovers Point Park 1100 Linear Feet $110,000 $15,641
Caledonia Park 549 Linear Feet $54,900 $11,731
Perkins Park 2900 Linear Feet $290,000 $10,167
At a potential base price of .024 the expansion of the LWP may produce an additional $37,500 annually; or $48,500 at the estimated plant recovery rate of $.0310. The cost of expansions noted in the table above are only estimates, but a significant expense would need to be approved to initiate the expansion. That cost is estimated at $454,900 for the potential expansion of the service area. Grant opportunities to pursue this effort could also be explored.

In addition to the infrastructure improvements, approvals will have to be granted by the Central Coast Regional Water Board and also by the State Water Resource Control Board, Department of Drinking Water. This approval would come after the completion of a cross connect test and a report specifying the validate of the test to ensure that there are no cross connections of the reclaimed water supply with the potable supply at the noted locations.

PGCC 3-2-2022

8 Operating Procedures
The City completed construction of the LWP via a design-build contract in January of 2018. The primary purpose of the Project is to produce and distribute high quality recycled water to replace potable water used for non-potable irrigation and toilet flushing demands. The LWP consists of a

0.25 million gallon per day Water Recycling Facility with an annual production capacity of 125 acre-feet per year.

In November of 2017, the City entered into an agreement with PercWater for operations and maintenance of the LWP. The high level scope of the agreement is to provide operations, maintenance, and management of the treatment plant. The operator is also tasked with providing all monitoring, reporting and State compliance. The agreement has a fixed cost for operations at $214,968 per year for a five-year period, with an annual increase tied to the Rider Levett Bucknall Quarterly Construction Cost Report local to Los Angeles. Additionally, there is a charge per acre foot of treated water set at $196.00 per acre foot of all influent.

The Asset Management Agreement is effective for a five-year period. Upon completion of the five-year period, the City may choose to renegotiate and implement a contract extension, if this is the desired approach. PercWater has been meeting the requirements of the Operations and Maintenance Agreement and is a suitable partner to the City for the operations of the plant.

Personnel
To properly manage and operate the plant, PercWater is required to staff the facility at least 6 hours a day during weekdays, and two hours per day on the weekends and holidays, with operators possessing at least a Grade III wastewater certificate. Their team consists of two onsite employees that rotate shifts, an Area Operations Manager that completes all reporting requirements and provides management to the onsite employees, and the Vice President of Operations.

PGCC 3-2-2022

9 Insurances
PercWater is required to maintain and require all of its subcontractors, consultants and other agents to maintain insurances noted within the agreement also. The required insurances include:

1. Workers Compensation and Employer Liability Insurance

2. General Liability Insurance

3. Automobile Liability Insurance

4. Pollution Liability Insurance

5. Professional Liability/Error & Omissions Insurance

6. Standards for Insurance Companies and Documentation

FINANCIAL DATA
Current Financial Condition
The Local Water Project initiated operations in the middle of Fiscal Year 17/18. In the first year of operations, there were remaining project expenditures of approximately $76,500 that were not covered by the State Water Resources Loan. These costs were paid through a transfer from the General Fund in Fiscal Year 19/20. In the first two full years of operations, operational costs continued to exceed operating revenues. The average operational deficit, net of transfers was approximately $260,000. This amount is reduced to $230,000 when the Fiscal Year 20/21 estimates are included in the calculation.

In Fiscal Year 20/21, the City approved a $600,000 loan from the Sewer Fund to the Local Water Project to assist in covering the negative fund balance. This 2021 LWP Interfund Loan was intended to supplement the current deficit fund balance and to allow time to assess the LWP operations and develop a financial sustainability plan. The addition of an unanticipated prior period utility payment is estimated to create a negative fund balance of $93,000 at the end of Fiscal Year 20/21.

PGCC 3-2-2022

10 An overview of the operating trends is presented in the chart below.

The additional information included in this document provides a foundation to assist in evaluating fiscal sustainability options, as well as sample recommendations.

Cash Flow
The Local Water Project has uneven cash receipting patterns. Recycled water is consumed on a seasonal basis, with demand peaking in summer months and declining in winter or rainy seasons.

An overview of consumption trends is presented in the subsequent chart.

The Local Water Project’s revenue receipting patterns is similar to demand trends; however an annual debt service payment of approximately $206,448 is payable in February. In addition to a ($77,000)
($326,000)
($519,000)
($93,000)
-$600,000
-$400,000
-$200,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Est
Revenues, Expenditures, and Available Fund Balance
Expenditures Avail. Fund Balance Revenues and Transfers -
1 2
3 4
5 6
July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May June Million Gallons
LWP Recycled Water Demand
(in gallons)
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 YTD
PGCC 3-2-2022

11 reduction in recycled water sales during winter months, this payment contributes to the temporary decline in operating cash. Water sales are billed to external customers in the month following consumption, while cash for internal customers, such as the Cemetery and City are transferred at the point of invoice. Revenues from external customers are typically received within 30 days of billing. The chart listed below represents the Local Water Project’s cash receipting trends. Any supplementary loans or transfers have been excluded to illustrate the typical cash flow patterns.

The chart identifies the seasonal troughs which are fairly consistent within the three-year period.

The average lowest points within the period is approximately $250,000.

Debt
California State Water Resources Revolving Loan
To construct the project, the City received an $2.4 million California Prop 13, Safe and Reliable Water Sources construction grant and a $5.2 million 1% State Revolving Fund Loan. The term of the loan is from November 17, 2015 to February 1, 2048, with an annual repayment of $206,448.28.
2021 LWP Interfund Loan
In Fiscal Year 20/21, the City approved a loan from the Sewer Fund to the Local Water Project for $600,000. This loan was initiated to assist in covering the deficit fund balance, while providing additional time to review operating solutions.
-$300,000
-$200,000
-$100,000
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June
Cash Flow, Net of Transfers
FY 19/20 FY 18/19 FY 20/21 YTD
PGCC 3-2-2022

12 An overview of recommended repayment strategies and terms are provided in the Recommendations section of this document.

Capital Equipment
There are numerous pieces of equipment associated with the operations of the LWP, some pieces are minor and will not require significant capital to repair or replace. These pieces of equipment are typically flowmeters, smaller pumps, compressors, and control panels.

The major pieces of equipment, which will require replacement or major maintenance and /or repair include the reuse pump station, the screens, UV disinfection, membranes, and permeate pumps.

During the first three full years of operations, there has not been a need to purchase capital equipment. The initial project documents included an Estimated Costs for the Major Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Schedule for the 0.25 MGD facility over a 30-year timeframe. This information is included in the Appendix. In addition to recovering operating costs through a new rate structure, funds for major purchases should also be incorporated into the rate. While debt financing could be considered for significant capital improvements, it is also typical to pay for planned costs through an equipment reserve. The use of financing could also be initially challenging due to debt service coverage ratios that may be required by lenders.

The base engineer’s estimate is provided, along with an estimate of the costs adjusted by a 2% CPI for the outlying years.
(1) Membrane costs allocated to be in alignment with capital expenditures. (2) Capital equipment estimate of $5,205,249 in 2015 dollars, with annual contribution of $173,508 Capital Replacement and Membranes
Replacement
Interval
Assumed
Purchase Year
Membrane
Replacement
Costs (1)
Capital
Expenditure
Total Adjusted for
current dollars at
est. 2.0% CPI (2)
1-5 FY 22/23 YR 5 $ 90,750 $ 90,750 $ 104,243
6-10 FY 27/28 YR 10 42,500 619,468 661,968 839,535
11-15 95,000 1,220,558 1,315,558 1,842,099
16-20 1,477,698 1,477,698 2,284,491
21-25 95,000 662,203 757,203 1,292,460
26-30 95,000 1,134,573 1,229,573 2,317,180
-
$ 327,500 $ 5,205,250 $ 5,532,750 $ 8,680,008
PGCC 3-2-2022

13 The engineer estimated that an annual accrual of $173,508 the 30-year term totaling $5,205,249 for capital expenditures should be reserved. This amount was represented in 2015 dollars. When this amount is adjusted for inflation, the annual contribution to support capital expenditures and membrane replacements is $289,344 or an average of both rates at approximately $237,000.

Recycled Water Rates
The current rate for recycled water is 0.0173. The break-even rate for the last fiscal years is presented below. The first table includes the cost recovery rate for operating expenditures and debt service. The second table calculates the average cost per gallon using expenditures for the three fiscal years, along with the average capital equipment and membrane costs in 2015 dollars; and the average costs inflated by a 2% CPI over the forecast period.

Cost per Gallon Based on Actual and Estimated Costs
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Est.

Expenditures $737,088 $795,819 $675,000
Gallons sold 29,741,422 31,126,940 30,434,000
Avg. Cost per gallon $0.0248 $0.0256 $0.0222
Avg. Cost per Gallon (CPG) with Capital and Significant Equipment Replacement Costs FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Est.

CPG with avg. capital costs at $184,000 $0.0310 $0.0315 $0.0282 CPG with avg. capital costs at $232,000 $0.0326 $0.0330 $0.0298 Based on the current and estimated demand, the average cost per gallon is $0.024 when considering only operating costs. When the capital costs are included in the calculation, the average three-year rate is approximately $0.0310. This would increase the rates included in the forecast period by approximately 40% to cover operational costs; or 79% to establish a reserve for capital equipment purchases. The estimated California American Water Company rate per gallon is approximately $0.0290, when surcharges, fees, and taxes are included. This calculation was based on the Cal Am online bill estimation tool, with similar estimates calculated internally and by the Golf Course lessee. A copy of the rate schedule is included in the Appendix.

The current lease agreement for the City’s golf course caps the amount the Local Water Project can charge for recycled water. This limitation prohibits full-cost recovery. An increase in demand could assist in funding fixed costs, while variable amounts, such as chemicals and utilities would PGCC 3-2-2022

14 increase with consumption. Based on the three-year data, the current demand, and customer base may not be sufficient to yield significant economies of scale. This is largely due to the amount of fixed costs, which include an annual debt service payment of $206,448; and the base operator costs of $214,968 which are adjusted for inflation.

Alternatives
Multiple scenarios were evaluated when reviewing sustainability options for the Local Water Project. The assumptions included an average increase in operating costs of 3%, debt service remaining constant, and increases greater than 2%, being phased-in over the eight-year period.

All scenarios rely on water entitlement sales to assist in repaying the 2021 Temporary Loan or to supplement operating costs through Fiscal Year 25/26. Scenarios I-VI also rely on the use of proceeds from a $625,187 promissory note. Scenarios I, IV, and V are primarily provided for illustration purposes only. They have been included in the analysis to show the potential impact when all or a portion of a potential $1.2 million promissory note is incorporated into the estimates.

These three scenarios would not be considered a viable option until an adequate agreement is reached with the developer. An overview is presented below:

Impact of Alternate Scenarios through Fiscal Year 28/29 EightYear
Increas
e
Average
Increase
Water
Entitlement
Sales
Promissory
Note Water
Entitlement
Flat
Charge
Projected
FY 28/29
rate
per gallon
Ending
Fund
Balance FY
28/29
Scenario I 16% 2.0% $650,000 $1,853,187 - 0.0202 ($630,837) Scenario II 16% 2.0% 1,025,000 625,187 $1,496,000 0.0202 25,505 Scenario III 16% 2.0% 600,000 625,187 $2,000,000 0.0202 99,087 Scenario IV 55% 6.9% 350,000 1,853,187 - 0.0292 499,010 Scenario V 61% 7.6% 350,000 1,239,187 - 0.0305 402,585
Scenario VI 66% 8.3% 625,000 625,187 - 0.0320 220,188
Scenario VII 70% 8.8% 1,000,000 - - 0.0332 99,113
A sample financial statement for Scenario VI is included in the Appendix, while an overview of the projected fund balance is presented in the chart on the subsequent page. The chart illustrates the effect of the increased rates on the estimated available fund balance, and the use of equipment reserves to fund capital improvements in Fiscal Year 27/28. In Fiscal Year 28/29, the chart also PGCC 3-2-2022

15 identifies the beginning of the fund balance replenishment process. These funds would be used to support cash flow and future improvements.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Debt Repayment Plan
A debt repayment plan needs to be established to repay the Sewer Fund for the $600,000 loan to the Local Water Project.

To assist with fiscal sustainability, consideration may be given to applying the proceeds from a $625,187 water entitlement promissory note to cover the loan repayment. This would provide the Local Water Project with a “fresh start”. The annual interest could be established based on the average interest rate that is equivalent to City’s investment portfolio. This could be charged annually against the outstanding loan balance. This would provide the Sewer Fund with the amount of interest that it would have earned if the $600,000 was retained in the Sewer Fund. The principal could be repaid to the Sewer Fund when the proceeds from the promissory note are received. It is estimated that this would be take place in Fiscal Year 22/23.

The use of operating cash or an increase in rates beyond the forecasted amount to fund the 2021 LWP Interfund Loan is not recommended due to the increase burden on ratepayers. (600,000)
(400,000)
(200,000)
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 FY 28/29 Estimated Available Fund Balance
PGCC 3-2-2022

16 If there are concerns that the promissory note would not be fulfilled, the City could elect one of the following alternatives:
• Allocate 100% of all prospective water entitlement sales to the Local Water Project. In most forecast scenarios, approximately 50-70% of the entitlement sales are allocated to the LWP fund, with the balance retained in the General Fund. While this could be an option, there is still some uncertainty as to whether the water entitlement sales will continue to perform at their current level.
• Work with the City’s auditors and legal staff to confirm the implications of a longer-term loan from the General Fund’s Strategic Opportunities Reserve. This could be a ten-year loan with interest equivalent to the average rate within the City’s debt portfolio, the City’s investment portfolio, or the current market rate.

Rate Structure and On-Going Operations
A financial plan needs to be established to assist the Local Water Project in becoming selfsufficient. Scenario VI, establishes a rate structure that ramps-up over a two-year period to cover operating costs, as well as begins to set aside funds for the recommended capital purchases through Fiscal Year 27/28. This scenario also includes a variable water rate that is applicable to all customers, rather than a fixed component, cap, or a surcharge. The rate could be adjusted based on cost recovery needs, as well as support any changing capital purchases.

While the Business Plan includes a multi-year forecast, a procedure for rate increases would also need to be established to reflect any significant variations from the Plan estimates. Updates on an annual basis may be difficult to calculate due to lead times, as well as fluctuations that may occur within a single year. An alternative would be to establish a three-year rate schedule that is based on the forecast. This would provide customers with the opportunity to incorporate the new rates into their operating budgets, as well as assist the City with budgetary planning. Future rate adjustments could be based on rolling three-year or historical consumption trends, with financial updates based on more current cost recovery needs.

PGCC 3-2-2022

17 The implementation of a rate increase would require a change in the contract with the current Golf Course lease. The information related to preliminary discussions with the lessee will be presented outside of this Business Plan.

Reserves
A cash flow reserve should be established at approximately $250,000 to assist the Local Water Project in becoming independent. While pooled cash would be available to supplement short-term cash flow needs, it isn’t viable as a long-term solution.

A capital reserve should also be established to retain funds to pay for projected capital improvements and major maintenance costs. Scenario IV presents a plan to support these costs through the forecast period.

Similar capital-intensive entities have established rate stabilization funds to assist in smoothing rates when there is less demand, as well as emergency reserves to support unanticipated costs.

These additional reserves could be considered once the Local Water Project’s finances have been stabilized.

PGCC 3-2-2022

18 Appendix
PGCC 3-2-2022

California American Water Company Rate Schedule
The Local Water Project is considered Division 2, with a 4” meter PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9899-W
Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9861-W
Schedule No. MO-1C Sheet 1
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1318-A J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution

APPLICABILITY
Applicable to all water furnished on a metered basis to non-residential customers in the service areas defined below.

TERRITORY
The incorporated cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, a portion of Seaside, Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch subdivisions, Bishop subdivision including the area known as Laguna Seca Ranch Estates and vicinity and certain unincorporated areas in the County of Monterey.

RATES
Quantity Rates:

Non-Residential Customers: Base Rate
Per 100 gal (CGL)
Division 1………………………………………………… $1.9329
Division 2………………………………………………… $2.1745
Division 3………………………………………………… $2.4161
Division 4………………………………………………… $4.8322
Service charge: General Metered:

Per Meter
Per Month
For 5/8 x 3/4-inch meter…………………………………… $25.27
For 3/4-inch meter…………………………………………. $37.90
For 1-inch meter……………………………………………. $63.16
For 1-1/2-inch meter……………………………………….. $126.33
For 2-inch meter……………………………………………. $202.12
For 3-inch meter……………………………………………. $378.98
For 4-inch meter……………………………………………. $631.63
For 6-inch meter……………………………………………. $1,262.26
For 8-inch meter……………………………………………. $2,021.22
The Meter Charge is a readiness-to-serve charge which is applicable to all metered service and to which is added the charge for water used computed at the Quantity Rate. (I)
(I)
(I)
(I)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9784-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 2
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1310 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
DEFINITIONS:

1. WATER FACTOR - “Water Factor” shall mean a rating of water efficiency established by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy through the Energy Star Program. The Water Factor is the number of gallons per cycle per cubic foot that the Clothes Washer uses. The lower the Water Factor, the more efficient the washer is. So, if a Clothes Washer uses 30 gallons per cycle and has a tub volume of 3.0 cubic feet, then the Water Factor is 10.0.

2. WATER EFFICIENT ICE MACHINE – “Water Efficient Ice Machine” shall mean a commercial ice machine that meets or exceeds Energy Star standards for air-cooled ice machines.

3. SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION SYSTEM – “Supplemental irrigation system” shall mean irrigation systems other than natural precipitation.

4. WATER BUDGET FEATURE – “Water budget feature” shall mean percent up/down adjust feature such as a button or dial on an irrigation controller that permits the user to increase or decrease the runtimes or application rate as for each zone by a prescribed amount or percent, by means of one adjustment without modifying the settings for that individual zone.

5. GEAR DRIVE ROTOR SPRINKLERS – “Gear drive rotor sprinklers” shall mean Irrigation sprinklers with high uniformity rates and lower precipitation rates than conventional sprinkler heads or impact rotors resulting in more efficient irrigation.

6. MULTI STREAM, MULTI TRAJECTORY ROTATING SPRINKLERS (MSMTR) – “Multi stream, multi trajectory rotating sprinklers” shall mean slowly turning irrigation sprinklers distributing water in a number of individual streams of varying trajectories with lower precipitation rates and higher uniformity than traditional fixed spray head sprinklers.

7. HIGH EFFICIENCY FIXED SPRAY NOZZLES – “High efficiency fixed spray nozzles” shall mean precision irrigation spray nozzles with larger and more uniform droplet size resulting in better wind resistance, lower precipitation rates and higher irrigation efficiency.

8. DRIP IRRIGATION - “Drip Irrigation” shall mean a low pressure, low volume watering system that applies water slowly to plants, near or at ground level, to minimize runoff and loss to evaporation.

The term “Drip Irrigation” shall have the same meaning as “Micro Irrigation” and “Trickle Irrigation.”

9. SUB SURFACE LOW VOLUME EMITTERS – “Sub surface low volume emitters” shall mean drip or low volume, low pressure irrigation systems that deliver a low flow of water at or near the root zone of plants - measured in gallons per hour versus gallons per minute. (T)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9785-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 3
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1310 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
DEFINITIONS (Continued):

10. LOW VOLUME IRRIGATION – “Low volume irrigation” shall mean drip, low volume or Micro Spray Irrigation, includes Low volume fixed spray nozzles.

11. Best Management Practices - “BMP” as referenced in Section V of the Settlement attached to D.13- 07-041.

12. Customer Classification Conservation Base Rate – “CCCBR”. the “Customer Class Conservation Base Rate” (“CCCBR”) is defined as the low block or division quantity rate from each billing customer classification under conservation rates, and is determined as the rate necessary to equal the billing classification revenue requirement given the defined rate design parameters.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

General Items:

1. The boundaries in which the above rates apply are as set forth in the Preliminary Statement and delineated on the Tariff Service Area Maps filed as a part of these tariff schedules.

2. This non-residential rate design shall remain in effect and until ordered otherwise by the Commission.

3. Abbreviations as used in this tariff are defined above.

4. Non-residential customers billed under this tariff shall be placed into one of four divisions for billing purposes. The determination of under which Division each individual customer shall be billed will be based on the following:
a. Division 1: Customers that are indoor/outdoor Rate BMP-compliant and have outdoor landscape irrigation of no more than 10% of total parcel size covered by the meter (or meters) meant to serve such parcel, and excluding from the total parcel size for purposes of the 10% calculation areas of natural, non-irrigated open space. Meters designated as irrigation only meters will not be included in Division 1 regardless of the 10% parcel size allowance noted above.
b. Division 2: Customers that are indoor/outdoor Rate BMP-compliant and have a business where the watering is essential to the product of the business (nurseries), golf courses and government parks, ball fields, and cemeteries.
c. Division 3: Customers that are indoor/outdoor Rate BMP-compliant and have outdoor landscape irrigation exceeding the 10% parcel limit for Division 1, as well all Rate BMPcompliant irrigation meters, as previously noted in Special Condition 6 (a). d. Division 4: Customers that are not in compliance with Rate BMPs.

5. Upon approval of the tariff all customers who respond to the request to provide self-certified Rate BMP information will be appropriately categorized into Division 1, 2, 3 or 4 immediately so that all bills issued under the new tariff reflect the provision of a completed survey.

6. Customers that are subsequently found to be non Rate BMP compliant will be given 30 days from the date of notification to achieve compliance as noted in the non-compliance letter.

7. All Del Monte Forest golf courses served with emergency potable water from the connection at the Viscaino tank will be assigned an emergency allocation of 30 AF/year. Any potable use within this allotment will be billed at customer Division 1 rates. Usage above the annual allotment would be billed at customer Division 2 rates.
(T)
(T)
(T)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9786-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 4
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1310 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued):

General Items:

8. Rate BMP Compliant will be defined as follows:
a. Indoor Usage
i. Showerheads – Rain Bars, or Body Spray Nozzles shall be designed and manufactured to emit a maximum of 2.0 gallons per minute GPM.
ii. Public Washbasins shall emit a maximum of 0.5 GPM.
iii. Public Washbasins equipped with automatic shut off devices or sensor faucets shall operate with a maximum flow rate of 0.25 gallons per cycle.
iv. Private Washbasins (e.g.; Washbasins in hotel or motel guest rooms and hospital patient rooms) shall emit a maximum of 1.5 GPM.
v. All other sinks shall be restricted to flow at a maximum of 1.5 GPM. vi. Ultra low flow toilets (1.6 gallons per flush (“GPF”)), High Efficiency Toilets (1.28 GPF) or Ultra High Efficiency Toilets (0.8 GPF). All toilets replaced after December 31, 2014 will have to be High Efficiency or Ultra High Efficiency
vii. Water efficient urinals designed to flush with a maximum of 0.5 GPF. Includes High Efficiency Urinals (0.5 GPF), pint urinals (0.125 GPF), or waterless urinals. viii. Water Efficient (1.6 GPM) Pre-Rinse spray valves (as applicable), Medical and laboratory photographic, and/or X-Ray processing systems must recirculate water used in the rinse process.
ix. All Visitor-Serving Facilities must use Water Efficient Ice Machines x. All Clothes Washers must be rated with a Water Factor of 5.0 or below. There is an exception when the existing appliance was purchased between December 31, 2005 and December 31, 2012, and rates a Water Factor of 5.1-6.0. xi. Visitor-serving, Public, and Quasi-Public facilities must display placards or decals promoting water awareness and the need for conservation in visible locations in restrooms, kitchens, and dining areas.
xii. Visitor-serving facilities must offer towel and linen reuse programs by providing written notice in the rooms.
xiii. Restaurants must provide written notice that drinking water is available only upon request.

Notices must be placed on tables and/or menus. Drinking water will not be provided from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System, unless specifically requested. b. Outdoor Usage
i. All supplemental irrigation systems require the use of an automated irrigation controller, which must include a water budget feature and may include products, which rely on soil or weather sensors to adjust irrigation schedules.
ii. Turf grass areas that receive supplemental irrigation must be watered with gear drive rotor sprinklers, multi stream, multi trajectory rotating sprinklers, high efficiency fixed spray nozzles or sub surface low volume emitters.
iii. Low volume irrigation is encouraged for landscaped areas containing trees, shrubs and groundcover. The use of standard fixed spray nozzles will not be allowed in landscape beds measuring 3’ or less.
iv. All automated irrigation controllers must include sensors, or devices that interrupt, or delay a scheduled irrigation event due to rainfall that equals or exceeds an established threshold. v. Hoses, used to hand water landscaped areas must be equipped with a positive shut off device.

PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9787-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 5
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1310 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued):

General Items

9. Every meter will be categorized and issued a single bill unless a customer requests that a single consolidated bill be provided and then only if the system is capable of doing so without loss of any necessary data or delays in billing.

10. Moratorium: In portions of the Monterey Service Area served, in whole or part, by Carmel River diversions, and subject to the following conditions and restrictions, California-American Water Company shall deny requests for new service connections and prohibit any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use:
a. California-American Water Company shall not deny such requests or prohibit such increased use where all necessary written approvals for project construction and connection to California-American Water Company’s system had been obtained prior to October 20, 2009;
b. California-American Water Company shall not deny the installation of additional meters at an existing service provided that the additional metering does not result in an increase in water use.
c. This special condition does not authorize California-American Water Company to deny service to:
i. the area served by the Carmel Area Wastewater District Water Entitlement pursuant to Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Ordinances 39 and 109 and Rule 23.5, prior to January 1, 2017 ;
ii. the area served by the Sand City Water Entitlement pursuant to Monterey Peninsula Water Management District Ordinance 132 and Rule 23.6; iii. Security National Guaranty, Inc. under its frontloading agreement; iv. a connection or increased use where an authorized official of the State Water Resources Control Board has given written approval.
(T)
(T)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9788-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 6
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1310 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued):

General Items

10. Moratorium(Continued): In portions of the Monterey Service Area served, in whole or part, by Carmel River diversions, and subject to the following conditions and restrictions, CaliforniaAmerican Water Company shall deny requests for new service connections and prohibit any increased use of water at existing service addresses resulting from a change in zoning or use:
d. California-American Water Company shall not deny a request for new service or prohibit the increased use of water at an existing service address if an authorized official of the State Water Resources Control Board has given written approval for such service or increased use.
e. This special condition shall expire at the filing by California-American Water Company of a Tier 1 advice letter with the Commission transmitting the written concurrence of the Deputy Director of Water Rights of the State Water Resources Control Board with California-American Water Company’s finding that a permanent supply of water is ready to serve as a replacement for the unlawful diversions of Carmel River water

11. Customers that have heretofore been billed as mixed use customers prior to March 1, 2017 will now be reclassified into either a multi-residential or non-residential classification. Those prior mixed use customers with a large number of individual dwelling units on large parcels will be classified as a multi-residential customer after March 1, 2017 and be billed under the same methodology as all other multi-residential customers, which is based on a block use allowance per dwelling unit. All other former mixed use customers will be billed under the divisional billing parameters and rates for non-residential customers.
(T)
(T)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9976-W
Cancelling Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9868-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 7
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1326 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision D. 20-08-047 DIRECTOR -Rates & Regulatory Effective Resolution
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued):

Fees and Surcharges

1. All bills are subject to the reimbursement fee set forth in Schedule No.UF.

2. A surcharge is included on each bill to collect franchise taxes and/or business license fees paid to various municipalities. The amount collected is based on a percentage of the gross revenues of each bill. The percentages are as follows:

Franchise Fees: Ryan Ranch 1.00%, City of Pacific Grove 2.00%, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea

2.00%, City of Seaside 1.00%, City of Del Rey Oaks Franchise Fee 2.00%, City of Monterey 1.00%, and unincorporated areas of Monterey County 1.00%.

Business Fees: City of Del Rey Oaks 0.11% and City of Sand City 0.12%.

Per D.18-12-021 a three-year conservation budget of $2,298,500 for 2018-2020 for Monterey Service Area. Effective November 23, 2020, the Conservation Surcharge will be removed from customer bill.

3. Per Advice Letter 1230-B, a surcharge of $1.81 for the Customer Assistance Program (CAP) Balancing Account will be collected from all non-customer assistance program water and wastewater customers

4. Per Advice Letter 1152, a fee of 8.325%, imposed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD), will be assessed against the customer’s monthly base bill to fund MPWMD’s environmental mitigation, water supply, and conservation programs, as well as other activities. The fee will remain in effect until otherwise directed by the Commission.

This fee is applicable to customers in the Monterey Main, Bishop, Hidden Hills and Ryan Ranch areas.

6. Per Advice Letter 1199, the balance of the 2017 Non-Residential WRAM/MCBA is $2,762,923 as of December 31, 2017. The surcharge is shown in the table below and will remain effective until December 2021.

Non-Residential
Monterey Main, Hidden Hills,
Ryan Ranch, & Bishop Systems:

Surcharge
per 100 gal Months
Division 1 $0.1363 18
Division 2 $0.1533 18
Division 3 $0.1703 18
Division 4 $0.3407 18
(C)
(C)
PGCC 3-2-2022

CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1410
San Diego, CA 92101
Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9935-W
Cancelling Original Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9790-W
Schedule No. MO-1C (Continued) Sheet 8
GENERAL METERED SERVICE in the Monterey Service Area Tariff Area

NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS
(Continued)
(TO BE INSERTED BY UTILITY) ISSUED BY (TO BE INSERTED BY C.P.U.C.) Advice 1322 J. T. LINAM Date Filed
Decision DIRECTOR - Rates & Regulatory Effective
Resolution
SPECIAL CONDITIONS (Continued):

Fees and Surcharges

7. In accordance with Decision 16-12-003, the WRAM/MCBA balance through 2014 for the Monterey Service Area shall be recovered over five years with interest at the 90-day commercial paper rate.

The surcharge is shown in the table below and will remain effective for 60 months upon approval of Advice Letter 1146-A, ending February 28, 2022.

Meter Size Meter Surcharge
For 5/8” x 3/4" meter $4.21
For 3/4" meter $8.42
For 1” meter $12.63
For 1-1/2” meter $21.05
For 2” meter $33.68
For 3” meter $63.15
For 4” meter $102.25
For 6” meter $210.50
For 8” meter $336.80

8. Per Advice Letter 1322, the under-collected balance in the Monterey Service Area Consolidated Expense Balancing Account will be recovered through a quantity-based surcharge of $0.0669 per 100 gallons over 12 months effective March 18, 2021. This total amount will be recovered from all classes of customers except Chualar customers.

9. Per D.18-12-021 a meter based bill credit for the 2018 Excess Non-Plant Accumulated Deferred Income Tax will be refunded to customers over the 24-month period beginning October 17, 2019.

Meter Size
Refunds by Meter
Equivalents
5/8 x 3/4 $1.47
3/4 $2.21
1 $3.68
1 1/2 $7.35
2 $11.77
3 $22.06
4 $36.77
6 $73.54
8 $117.66
10 $169.14

10. Per Advice Letter 1265-A, the net under-collected balance of the 2018 Non-Residential WRAM/MCBA is $106,180, including interest. D.18-12-021 raises the cap on WRAM/MCBA surcharges to 15% of the authorized revenue requirement. Rates will be established through a separate Tier 1 filing to update the tariff language and surcharge based upon the then current authorized amortization.
(C)
(C)
(C)
PGCC 3-2-2022