Pacific Grove City Council
April 20, 2022

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

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

Sales and Use Tax Amended Budget YTD Receipts % of Amended Budget FY21/22 4,309,000 2,473,614 57.4%
In FY19/20, the City received sales tax monthly; however, two payments were advances, which were based on estimated sales, prior period tax receipts, adjustments, and current distributions. This was followed by a true-up within each quarter. Due to this methodology, the advance monthly tax contributions were not truly representative of actual performance.

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

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

Tax Return Period 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Net Difference July Advance 373,338 358,945 303,144 (55,801)
August Advance 439,453 427,105 507,200 80,095
September True-up 376,610 243,269 287,224 43,955
October Advance 297,095 343,188 311,118 (32,070)
November Advance 323,622 333,869 324,181 (9,688)
December True-up 496,186 302,359 479,810 177,451
January Advance 244,631 281,830 260,937 (20,893)
February Advance 322,132 339,550
March True-up 171,312 239,864
April Advance 241,956 314,606
May Advance 398,893 395,212
June True-Up 240,350 481,058
3,925,578 4,060,855 2,473,614 183,049
February 2022 payments are anticipated to be received in late April as the State pays the City two months in arrears (1) The October Fiscal Year 19/20 amount includes an annual sales tax payment of $50,983. This represents an annual remittance for select businesses that are within the shared taxing jurisdictions of Monterey and Pacific Grove.

PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda No. 8 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joe Amelio, Council Member
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Monterey Salinas Transit Board Minutes for March 14, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
MST Minutes
PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda # 3-3
April 11, 2022 Meeting

MEETING OF THE MST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MEETING MINUTES
March 14, 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
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: Yanely Martinez City of Greenfield
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
Lisa Cox Risk and Safety Manager
Deanna Smith Civil Rights Officer
Sonjé Dayries Compliance Officer
Elena Grigorichina Operations Analyst
Marzette Henderson Contract Services Manager
Kevin Allshouse Mobility Coordinator
PGCC 4-20-22

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

Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.

1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll Call.
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Albert called the meeting to order at 10:08 a.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Chair Albert led the pledge of allegiance. 1-3. Review Highlights of the Agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)

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

3. CONSENT AGENDA
These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request that an item be discussed and considered separately.
3-1. Approve Resolution 2022-24 Authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings. (Carl Sedoryk)
3-2. Adopt Resolution 2022-25 Recognizing Daniel Bruno, Scheduling Assistant, as Employee of the Month for March 2022. (Sloan Campi) 3-3. Approve Minutes of the MST Board Meeting on February 14, 2022. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha)
3-4. Receive Draft Minutes MST Board Operations Performance Committee Meeting on February 14, 2022. (Jeanette Alegar-Rocha) (Page 19) PGCC 4-20-22

3-5. Financial Reports – January 2022. (Lori Lee)
a) Accept reports of January 2022 Cash Flow
b) Approve January Disbursements
c) Accept Report of January 2022 Treasury Transactions
3-6. Receive Report on Lost and Found Items Left on MST Property for the Month of November 2021. (Sonia Wills)
3-7. Receive MST’s Audited FY 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. (Lisa Rheinheimer)
3-8. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Purchase Six (6) Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Vehicles from Freeway Toyota in an Amount Not to Exceed $186,000. (Norman K. Tuitavuki)
3-9. Authorize the General Manager/CEO to Purchase Up to Three (3) Chargepoint Chargers Directly from ChargePoint, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $168,537. (Norman K. Tuitavuki)
3-10. Re-appoint members Juan Pablo Lopez and Sharlene Hughes to the Measure Q Oversight Committee for a term of three (3) years beginning March 26, 2022 and appoint Christine Winge as a representative of the unincorporated area of Monterey County for a term of three (3) years beginning March 26, 2022. (Lisa Rheinheimer)
3-11. Receive Draft Minutes of the Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC) on January 26, 2022. (Claudia Valencia)
End of Consent Agenda
There were no public comments on the Consent Agenda.

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 items 3-1 through 3-11 on the Consent Agenda:

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

4. RECOGNITIONS AND SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
4-1. March 2022 Employee of the Month – Daniel Bruno (Sloan Campi) PGCC 4-20-22

4-2. 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)

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None

6. ACTION ITEMS
6-1. Receive Mid-Year Budget Report and Year End Forecast for FY 2021/22. (Lisa Rheinheimer/Andrea Williams)
There were no public comments.

The Board received a report on mid-year budget expenditures and year-end forecast from Lisa Rheinheimer, Assistant General Manager.

7. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require action by the Board. 7-1. General Manager/CEO Report – January 2021
7-2. Federal Legislative Advocacy Report – March 2022
7-3. State Legislative Advocacy Update
7-4. Staff Trip Reports – None
7-5. Correspondence – None

8. BOARD REPORTS, COMMENTS, AND REFERRALS
8-1. Reports on Meetings Attended by Board Members at MST Expense. (AB 1234)
8-2. Board Member Comments and Announcements.
a. Spare Buses Available for Donation – deadline March 31, 2022 8-3. Board Member Referrals for Future Agendas.

9. CLOSED SESSION
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to Closed Session.

There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda. (Please refer to page 1 of the agenda for instructions) PGCC 4-20-22

As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's MeyersMilias-Brown Act representative. 9-1 Conference with Monterey-Salinas Transit and ATU Labor Contract – Gov.

Code § 54957.6.

Associate Counsel Michael D. Laredo reported that action was made on a motion by Chair Albert, seconded by Director Gaglioti and carried by the following vote, which was conducted by roll call that the MST Board authorized staff to enter into negotiations with ATU:

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

10. ATTACHMENTS
10-1. The Detailed Monthly Performance Statistics and Disbursement Journal for January 2022 can be viewed online within the GM Report at http://mst.org/about-mst/board-of-directors/board-meetings/

11. ADJOURN
With no further business to discuss, Chair Albert adjourned the meeting at 11:37 a.m. (Pacific).

PREPARED BY:___________________ REVIEWED BY:__________________ Jeanette Alegar-Rocha Carl G. Sedoryk
PGCC 4-20-22

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: April 20, 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 4-20-22

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 4-20-22

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: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: FY21/22 Crack & Slurry Seal Award of Contract Action required by 4/20/2022.

CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Graham Contractors Inc. for the FY21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal project in an amount not to exceed $240,792 plus a 10% contingency.

DISCUSSION
In 2019, the city completed a Pavement Management Program (PMP) assessing all 66.7 centerline miles that comprise the city’s road network. The PMP is used as a vital tool to help maintain and rehabilitate the pavement network.

The pavement network is managed by harnessing several pavement treatments. Pavement treatments range from full road reconstructions and overlays to maintenance treatments like crack and slurry seals.

Each pavement treatment has an appropriate application. Crack and slurry seal treatments are a vital aspect of the city’s pavement maintenance activities. These treatments are utilized to prevent rapid pavement deterioration and potholes due to inclement weather.

The PMP was used to identify approximately 631,000 SF of street surface to be crack and slurry sealed at various locations as part of the approved FY21/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project, the FY21/22 Crack and Slurry Seal.

A call for bids was issued on January 24, 2022. 8 bids were received.

Company Bid Amount
Graham Contractors, Inc. $240.792
Doolittle Construction LLC $275,223.12
Dryco Construction Inc. $276,201.52
VSS International $279,325
Pavement Coatings Co. $297,036
American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Co., Inc. $304,132 Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. $314,007
PGCC 4-20-22

Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc. $464,616.41
Graham Contractors Inc. has qualified as the lowest responsible bidder. Graham Contractors has successfully completed crack and slurry seal maintenance treatments for the city in previous years.

The scope of work for this project includes crack sealing, removal of existing road striping and markings, and application of slurry seal and thermoplastic road markings and striping.

OPTIONS

1. Authorize the contract.

2. Do not authorize the contract. Failure to authorize the contract will hinder the City's ability to meet Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements in order to be eligible for continued Measure X and Senate Bill 1 funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

As part of the FY21/22 CIP, the Crack and Slurry Seal project was originally approved with a $250,000 budget, with $200,000 being derived from the General Fund and $50,000 from Measure X.

Bids came in higher than anticipated as a result of increased fuel costs, which impact project equipment and material costs. In order to fund the full project, which includes this construction contract and associated engineering costs, a mid-year budget adjustment was approved by the City Council on April 6, 2022, allocating an additional $54,757 of Measure X funds. This brings the full project budget to $304,757:

Project Funding Source Approved Funding
General Fund $200,000
Measure X $104,757
GOAL ALIGNMENT: City Asset Stewardship: Repair, maintain and improve City assets, including streets, sidewalks, sewer systems, buildings, and parks and trails.

Attachments
Draft Agreement
PGCC 4-20-22

1 CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT
FY21/22 CRACK & SLURRY SEAL
This CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), is made and effective April 25, 2022, by and between the City of Pacific Grove, a municipal corporation (“City”), and GRAHAM CONTRACTORS, INC. (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on April 25, 2022 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2022, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONTRACTOR shall perform within the time set forth in the project specifications and shall furnish all labor, materials, equipment, tools, utility services, and transportation and perform and complete all work required in connection with the construction of CRACK AND SLURRY SEAL OF VARIOUS ROAD SEGMENTS “Work” for the FY21/22 CRACK AND SLURRY SEAL PROJECT (CIP22-02) (hereinafter “Project”).

By entering into this Agreement, CONTRACTOR acknowledges that there may be other contractors on the site whose work will be coordinated with that of its own.

CONTRACTOR expressly warrants and agrees that it will cooperate with other contractors and will do nothing to delay, hinder, or interfere with the work of other separate contractors, the City, the Construction Manager, the Architect, or utilities.

CONTRACTOR also expressly agrees that, in the event its work is hindered, delayed, interfered with, or otherwise affected by a separate contractor, its sole remedy will be a direct action against the separate contractor. To the extent allowed by law, CONTRACTOR will have no remedy, and hereby expressly waives any remedy against the City, the Construction Manager, or the Architect on account of delay, hindrance, interference or other events caused by a separate contractor.

3. PERFORMANCE
a. CONTRACTOR shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of its ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. CONTRACTOR shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of CONTRACTOR hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.

PGCC 4-20-22

2 Construction Services Agreement
b. CONTRACTOR shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by the California Division of Industrial Safety. CONTRACTOR further agrees to take all necessary precautions for the safety of its employees and shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state and local regulations, ordinances and codes. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for erecting and properly maintaining at all times as required by the conditions and progress of the work, all necessary safeguards for the protection of workers and the public and shall post danger signs warning against known or reasonably foreseeable or unusual hazards. c. CONTRACTOR must possess at the time of commencing work and throughout the Project duration, a Contractor’s License, issued by the State of California, which is current and in good standing. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that any subcontractor working on the Project possesses at the time of commencing work and throughout the Project duration, a Contractor’s License, issued by the State of California, which is current and in good standing.
d. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a valid City Business License and shall maintain said Business License for the term of this Agreement and any extensions. e. CONTRACTOR shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by CONTRACTOR or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of CONTRACTOR to comply with this Section.
f. CONTRACTOR agrees to comply with all the applicable provisions of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code, which Sections are hereby specifically referred to, incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though set forth at length herein.
g. CONTRACTOR agrees that in the performance of this Agreement or any subagreement hereunder, neither CONTRACTOR nor any person acting on CONTRACTOR’s behalf shall refuse to employ or refuse to continue in any employment any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sexual preference, sex or age. Harassment in the workplace is not permitted in any form. CONTRACTOR further agrees to comply with all laws with respect to employment when performing this Agreement.
h. CONTRACTOR shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and part of this Agreement.

PGCC 4-20-22

3 Construction Services Agreement
i. To ensure performance, CONTRACTOR must provide Faithful Performance and Labor and Material Bonds in favor of City, each in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the Agreement.
j. CONTRACTOR declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure is used against or in concert with any officer or employee of the City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial agreement or financial inducement. No officer or employee of the City will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from CONTRACTOR, or from any officer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

4. REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 1771.1(a) of the Labor Code:
a. “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or by Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contractor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.”
b. CONTRACTOR must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) of the State of California in order to be eligible to work on public works projects. CONTRACTOR shall ensure registration with the DIR that is active and in good standing.
c. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project (submitted on or after March 1, 2015) unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 [with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code section 1771.1(a)].
d. No contractor or subcontractor may be awarded a contract for public work on a public works project (awarded on or after April 1, 2015) unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5.
e. This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. f. CONTRACTOR is not subject to public works requirements (including registration with the DIR) if the public works project is under $1,000, unless the City knows that PGCC 4-20-22

4 Construction Services Agreement
the same CONTRACTOR will be awarded total project costs in excess of $1,000 for a given year.

5. CONTENTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND PROPOSAL
CONTRACTOR is bound by the contents of City’s Request for Proposal on file at the Public Works Department hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and the contents of the proposal submitted by CONTRACTOR, available on file at the Public Works Department, hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. In the event of conflict, the requirements of City’s Request for Proposals and this Agreement shall take precedence over those contained in CONTRACTOR’s proposals.

6. CITY MANAGEMENT
Public Works Director shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by CONTRACTOR, but not including the authority to enlarge the Scope of Work or change the compensation due to CONTRACTOR. The City Manager shall be authorized to act on City’s behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Scope of Work or change CONTRACTOR’s compensation, subject to Section 7 hereof.

7. PAYMENT
a. City agrees to pay CONTRACTOR monthly, in accordance with the bid on file at the Public Works Department attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. THIS AMOUNT SHALL NOT EXCEED $240,792 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY which sum shall include all costs, if any, for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. The City Manager’s contract authority is limited to a total threshold of $40,000, which includes all costs. Contracts, including any contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, require City Council approval. Any contracts, including contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, which do not have City Council approval, shall be void.
c. CONTRACTOR will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of CONTRACTOR’s fees, it shall give written notice to CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.

PGCC 4-20-22

5 Construction Services Agreement
d. Retention of securities: Public Contract Code Section 22300 permits the substitution of securities for any monies withheld by a public agency to ensure performance under a contract, at the request and expense of CONTRACTOR.
e. Final Payment: Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Agreement Sum, shall be paid by the City to the CONTRACTOR no sooner than thirty-five (35) days after a Notice of Completion has been recorded, unless otherwise stipulated in the Notice of Completion, provided the work has then been completed, the Agreement fully performed, and a final Certificate for Payment has been issued by the Architect.

8. INSPECTION
City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work and materials. CONTRACTOR shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by City for the proper examination of the work and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not relieve CONTRACTOR from any obligation to perform said work strictly in accordance with the specifications or any modifications thereof and in compliance with the law.

9. CONTRACTOR’S FAILURE TO PROCURE COMPLETION OF PROJECT In the event CONTRACTOR fails to furnish tools, equipment, or labor in the necessary quantity or quality, or fails to prosecute the work or any part thereof contemplated by this Agreement in a diligent and workmanlike manner, and if CONTRACTOR for a period of three (3) calendar days after receipt of written demand from City or its designated representative to do so, fails to furnish tools, equipment, or labor in the necessary quantity or quality, and to prosecute its work and all parts thereof in a diligent and workmanlike manner, or after commencing to do so within said three (3) calendar days, fails to continue to do so; then City may exclude the CONTRACTOR from the premises, or any portion thereof, and take possession of said premises or any portion thereof, together with all material and equipment thereon, and may complete the work contemplated by this Agreement or any portion of said work, either by furnishing the tools, equipment, labor or material necessary, or by letting the unfinished portion of said work, or the portion taken over by the City to another contractor or by a combination of such methods. In any event, the procuring of the completion of said work, or the portion thereof taken over by the City, shall be a charge against the CONTRACTOR, and may be deducted from any money due or becoming due to CONTRACTOR from the City, or the CONTRACTOR shall pay the City the amount of said charge, or the portion thereof unsatisfied. The sureties, provided for under this Agreement shall become liable for payment should CONTRACTOR fail to pay in full any said cost incurred by the City.

10. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, CONTRACTOR shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise.

PGCC 4-20-22

6 Construction Services Agreement
If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, City shall pay to CONTRACTOR the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, CONTRACTOR will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 7.c.

11. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR
a. CONTRACTOR’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event CONTRACTOR is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating CONTRACTOR for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to CONTRACTOR. If such failure by CONTRACTOR to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond CONTRACTOR’s control, and without fault or negligence of CONTRACTOR, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or designee determines CONTRACTOR is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, they shall cause to be served upon CONTRACTOR a written notice of the default. CONTRACTOR shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event CONTRACTOR fails to cure its default within such period of time, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.

12. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a. CONTRACTOR shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.

CONTRACTOR shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records at CONTRACTORS office; shall permit City to make copies and transcripts there from as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained at the City of Pacific Grove City Hall for a minimum period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.

PGCC 4-20-22

7 Construction Services Agreement
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of CONTRACTOR.

With respect to computer files, CONTRACTOR shall make available to City, at City’s office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, and printing computer files.

13. RECORD AUDIT
In accordance with Government Code, Section 8546.7, records of both City and CONTRACTOR shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General for a period of three (3) years after final payment.

14. INDEMNIFICATION
CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend with legal counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with CONTRACTOR’s negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should conflict of interest principles preclude a single legal counsel from representing both City and CONTRACTOR, or should City otherwise find CONTRACTOR’s legal counsel unacceptable, then CONTRACTOR shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable legal counsel fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The CONTRACTOR shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the CONTRACTOR’s negligent, reckless or wrongful performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR obligations under this section apply regardless of whether such claim, charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee.

However, without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, CONTRACTOR shall not be required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been actively negligent and where PGCC 4-20-22

8 Construction Services Agreement
City’s active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the liability involved, the obligation of CONTRACTOR will be for that entire portion or percentage of liability not attributable to the active negligence of City.

15. INSURANCE
Prior to the beginning of and throughout the duration of the Work, CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors shall maintain insurance in conformance with the requirements set forth below. CONTRACTOR will use existing coverage to comply with these requirements. If that existing coverage does not meet the requirements set forth herein, CONTRACTOR agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so.

CONTRACTOR acknowledges that the insurance coverage and policy limits set forth in this section constitute the minimum amount of coverage required. Any insurance proceeds available to CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors in excess of the limits and coverage identified in this Agreement and which is applicable to a given loss, claim or demand, will be equally available to City.

16. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
a. CONTRACTOR is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of CONTRACTOR shall at all times be under CONTRACTOR’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of CONTRACTOR or any of CONTRACTOR’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of the City. CONTRACTOR shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to CONTRACTOR as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONTRACTOR for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONTRACTOR for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
c. Any and all employees or sub-contractors of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, shall be considered employees or sub-contractors of CONTRACTOR only and not of city. Any and all claims that may arise under the Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of said employees or sub-contractors, while so engaged and all claims made by a third party as a consequence of any negligent act or PGCC 4-20-22

9 Construction Services Agreement
omission on the part of the CONTRACTOR’s employees or sub-contractors, while so engaged in any of the work or services provided for or rendered herein shall not be City’s obligation.

17. PREVAILING WAGE
Wage rates for this Project shall be in accordance with the “General Wage Determination Made by the Director of Industrial Relations Pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2, Sections 1770, 1773 and 1773.1”, for Monterey County. Wage rates shall conform with those posted by Contractor and at the Project site. The following Labor Code sections are hereby referenced and made a part of this Agreement:
a. Section 1775 - Penalty for Failure to Comply with Prevailing Wage Rates. b. Section 1777.4 - Apprenticeship Requirements.
c. Section 1777.5 - Apprenticeship Requirements.
d. Section 1813 - Penalty for Failure to Pay Overtime.
e. Sections 1810 and 1811 - Working Hour Restrictions.
f. Section 1775 - Payroll Records.
g. Section 1773.8 - Travel and Subsistence Pay.
h. Section 1778 – Kickbacks.
i. Section 1779, 1780 – Acceptance of Fees.
j. Section 1771.4 – Certified Payroll.

Pursuant to the Labor Code, City is required to withhold from any progress payments owed to a contractor any amount that has been forfeited as penalties, or as wages owed to employees who have not been paid the prevailing wage for work performed. This allows the intervention by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which is headed by the State Labor Commission, in a contractor’s lawsuit for recovery of amounts withheld by an awarding body. All withheld wages and penalties will be transferred to the Labor Commissioner for disbursement in those cases where a contractor fails to bring a lawsuit for amounts withheld within ninety (90) days after completion of the public works contract and formal acceptance of the job by the awarding body. The Labor Commissioner is then permitted to intervene in any lawsuit brought by the contractor against an awarding body for recovery of amounts withheld.

18. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO LOCAL EMPLOYEES
No member, officer, or employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Project during their tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for Work to be performed in connection with the Project performed under this Agreement.

19. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
PGCC 4-20-22

10 Construction Services Agreement
CONTRACTOR shall at all times avoid conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest, in the performance of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR covenants that neither they nor any officer or principal of their firm have any interest in, or shall acquire any interest, directly nor indirectly, which will conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of their services hereunder. CONTRACTOR further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having such interest shall be employed by them as an officer, employee, agent, or sub-contractor.

CONTRACTOR further covenants that CONTRACTOR has not contracted with nor is performing any services, directly or indirectly, with any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area and further covenants and agrees that CONTRACTOR and/or its sub-contractors shall provide no service or enter into any agreement or agreements with a/any developer(s) and/or property owner(s) and/or firm(s) and/or partnership(s) owning property in the City or the study area prior to the completion of the work under this Agreement.

If City determines CONTRACTOR comes within the definition of Contractor under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et seq.), CONTRACTOR shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with City disclosing CONTRACTOR’s and/or such other person’s financial interests.

20. NO WAIVER OF BREACH/TIME
The waiver by City of any breach of any term or promise contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term or provision or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term or promise contained in this Agreement. Time is of the essence in carrying out the duties hereunder.

21. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION/RELEASE OF INFORMATION
a. All information gained by CONTRACTOR in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by CONTRACTOR without City’s prior written authorization. CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided CONTRACTOR gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. CONTRACTOR shall promptly notify City should CONTRACTOR, its officers, employees, agents, or sub-contractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request, court order, or subpoena from any person or PGCC 4-20-22

11 Construction Services Agreement
party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent CONTRACTOR and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding. CONTRACTOR agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by CONTRACTOR. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response.

22. SUBSURFACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
a. In the event trenches or other excavations extend deeper than four (4) feet below the surface, CONTRACTOR shall promptly, and before the following conditions are disturbed, notify the City in writing of any:
i. Material that CONTRACTOR believes may be material that is hazardous waste, as defined in Section 25117 of the Health and Safety Code, that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II or Class III disposal site in accordance with the provisions of existing law.
ii. Subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated.
iii. Unknown physical conditions at the site of any unusual nature, different materially from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent in the Work or the character provided for in the Agreement. b. Upon receipt of said notification, City will investigate the conditions, and if it finds that the conditions do materially so differ, or do involve hazardous waste, and cause a decrease or increase in the CONTRACTOR’s cost of or the time required for performance of any part of the work, the City will issue a change order under the procedures described in the Specifications.
c. In the event a dispute arises between the City and CONTRACTOR whether the conditions materially differ, or involve hazardous waste or cause a decrease or increase in the CONTRACTOR’s cost of or time required for performance of any part of the work, CONTRACTOR shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date provided for by the Agreement, but shall proceed with all work to be performed under the Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall retain any and all rights provided either by Agreement or by law which pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the contracting parties.

23. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Work is not completed within the Agreement time or in strict accordance with the Project Schedule, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage. It is therefore agreed that the PGCC 4-20-22

12 Construction Services Agreement
CONTRACTOR shall pay to the City the $1,000 or each and every calendar day of delay beyond the Agreement Time, or beyond any completion schedule, construction schedule or Project milestones established in or pursuant to the Project Schedule, or beyond the time indicated in the Project Schedule for any individual Agreement activity.

CONTRACTOR expressly understands, acknowledges and agrees that such liquidated damages can and shall be imposed if the CONTRACTOR does not meet each and every aspect of any activity schedule, completion schedule, construction schedule or Project milestones established in or pursuant to the Project Schedule. If the City accepts work or makes any payment under this Agreement after a default by reason of delays, the acceptance of such work and/or payment(s) shall in no respect constitute a waiver or modification of any provisions regarding Agreement Time, a completion schedule, the Project Schedule or the accrual of liquidated damages. In the event the same is not paid, the CONTRACTOR further agrees that City may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under the Agreement. This Section does not exclude recovery of damages under provisions of the Agreement Documents and is expressly in addition to the City’s ability to seek other damages.

Parties will meet and agree on a contract schedule. Liquidated damages may be assessed if any individual activity duration exceeds the time indicated for that activity on the Project Construction Schedule.

24. WARRANTY
In addition to any and all warranties provided or implied by law or public policy, CONTRACTOR warrants that all Services (including but not limited to all equipment and materials supplied in connection therewith) shall be free from defects in design and workmanship, and that CONTRACTOR shall perform all Services in accordance with all applicable engineering, construction and other codes and standards, and with the degree of high professional skill normally exercised by or expected from recognized professional firms engaged in the practice of supplying services of a nature similar to the Services in question. CONTRACTOR further warrants that, in addition to furnishing all tools, equipment and supplies customarily required for performance of work, CONTRACTOR shall furnish personnel with the training, experience and physical ability, as well as adequate supervision, required to perform the Services in accordance with the preceding standards and the other requirements of this Agreement. In addition to all other rights and remedies which City may have, City shall have the right to require, and CONTRACTOR shall be obligated at its own expense to perform, all further services which may be required to correct any deficiencies which result from CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform any Services in accordance with the standards required by this Agreement. Moreover, if, during the term of this Agreement (or during the one (1) year period following the term hereof), any equipment, goods or other materials or Services used or provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement fail due to defects in material and/or workmanship or other breach of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall, upon any reasonable notice from City, replace or repair the same to City’s satisfaction. Unless otherwise expressly permitted, all materials PGCC 4-20-22

13 Construction Services Agreement
and supplies to be used by CONTRACTOR in the performance of the Services shall be new and best of kind.

CONTRACTOR hereby assigns to City all additional warranties, extended warranties, or benefits like warranties, such as insurance, provided by or reasonably obtainable from suppliers of equipment and material used in the Services.

25. CLAIM PROCEDURES UNDER PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 9204 CONTRACTOR shall comply with the procedure set forth in Public Contracts Code section 9204 for any claim, as that term is defined therein, for one or more of the following: 1) a time extension, including, without limitation, for relief from damages or penalties for delay, 2) payment of money or damages arising from work done pursuant to this Agreement, and/or 3) payment of an amount disputed by the City under this Agreement.

26. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:

To City: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
To CONTRACTOR: David Graham, President
Graham Contractors, Inc.
860 Lonus Street
San Jose, CA 95126

27. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.

28. ASSIGNMENT
PGCC 4-20-22

14 Construction Services Agreement
CONTRACTOR shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. Subject to the foregoing, all terms of the Agreement will be binding upon, enforceable by and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.

29. GOVERNING LAW
City and CONTRACTOR understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in Monterey County, or the federal district court with jurisdiction over the City. CONTRACTOR agrees not to commence or prosecute any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts and irrevocably consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the aforementioned courts.

30. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COURT VENUE
Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other (formal judicial proceeding, mediation or arbitration) the party prevailing in such action shall be entitled to a reasonable attorney’s fee which shall be fixed by the judge, mediator or arbitrator hearing the case, and such fee shall be included in the judgment together with all costs.

31. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of CONTRACTOR warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CONTRACTOR and the authority to bind CONTRACTOR to the performance of its obligations hereunder.

32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.

33. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS: AMENDMENT
a. This document represents the entire and integrated Agreement between City and CONTRACTOR, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and agreements, either written or oral.
b. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement must be in writing.

PGCC 4-20-22

15 Construction Services Agreement
c. Neither City nor CONTRACTOR shall be deemed to have waived any obligation of the other, or to have agreed to any modification to this Agreement unless it is in writing, and signed by the party giving the waiver.

34. SEVERABILITY
If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONTRACTOR
By: By:

Public Works Director .

Date: Date:

By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________ City Mayor
Date: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Approved As To Form:

City Attorney
_______________________________
Date
PGCC 4-20-22

16 Construction Services Agreement
Exhibit A
Scope of Work/Services
CONTRACTOR shall provide construction services per bid specifications titled “FY 2021/2022 CRACK & SLURRY SEAL PROJECT” dated January 2022 prepared by Neill Engineers Corp.

The bid specifications and engineered drawings are incorporated herein by reference and are made an integral part of this Agreement.

Contractors and/or sub-contractors shall provide the City of Pacific Grove’s project manager with daily field observations/inspection reports and testing results.

The work, as indicated by the plans shall be done in accordance with the special provisions/technical specifications as designated and engineered by Neill Engineers Corp, in accordance with the current edition of Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation.

Contractor shall submit a traffic control plan of the City’s Traffic Engineer for approval prior to the commencement of work.

All work outlined in this contract, project specifications, and engineered plans shall be performed in a workman like manner and in accordance with industry standards.

All environmental and water pollution prevention requirements as specified in the plans and specifications shall be met and constantly monitored throughout the project.

PGCC 4-20-22

17 Construction Services Agreement
Exhibit B
Insurance Specifications
General liability insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and a $2,000,000 completed operations aggregate. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.

Automobile liability insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the CONTRACTOR arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, nonowned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.

Workers’ compensation insurance. CONTRACTOR shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000) for CONTRACTOR’s employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 of the Labor Code In addition, CONTRACTOR shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Section 3700 for all of the subcontractor’s employees.

CONTRACTOR shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.

Builder’s risk insurance (construction contracts as applicable). Upon commencement of construction and with approval of City, CONTRACTOR shall obtain and maintain builder’s risk insurance for the entire duration of the Project until only the City has an insurable interest. The Builder’s Risk coverage shall include the coverages as specified below.

The named insureds shall be CONTRACTOR and City, including its officers, officials, employees, and agents. All Subcontractors (excluding those solely responsible for design Work) of any tier and suppliers shall be included as additional insureds as their interests may appear. CONTRACTOR shall not be required to maintain property insurance for any portion of the Project following transfer of control thereof to City. The policy shall contain a provision that all proceeds from the builder’s risk policy shall be made payable to the City.

The City will act as a fiduciary for all other interests in the Project.

Policy shall be provided for replacement value on an “all risk” basis for the completed value of the project. There shall be no coinsurance penalty or provisional limit provision in any such policy. Policy must include: (1) coverage for any ensuing loss from faulty workmanship, Nonconforming Work, omission or deficiency in design or specifications; (2) PGCC 4-20-22

18 Construction Services Agreement
coverage against machinery accidents and operational testing; (3) coverage for removal of debris, and insuring the buildings, structures, machinery, equipment, materials, facilities, fixtures and all other properties constituting a part of the Project; (4) Ordinance or law coverage for contingent rebuilding, demolition, and increased costs of construction; (5) transit coverage (unless insured by the supplier or receiving contractor), with sub-limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any key equipment item; (6) Ocean marine cargo coverage insuring any Project materials or supplies, if applicable; (7) coverage with sub-limits sufficient to insure the full replacement value of any property or equipment stored either on or off the Site or any staging area. Such insurance shall be on a form acceptable to City to ensure adequacy of terms and sublimits and shall be submitted to the City prior to commencement of construction.

1. Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s risk manager prior to commencement of performance. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.

Duration of coverage. CONTRACTOR shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by CONTRACTOR, his agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. CONTRACTOR must maintain general liability and umbrella or excess liability insurance for as long as there is a statutory exposure to completed operations claims. City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall continue as additional insureds under such policies.

Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by CONTRACTOR shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and noncontributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

Products/completed operations coverage. Products/completed operations coverage shall extend a minimum of three (3) years after project completion. Coverage shall be included on behalf of the insured for covered claims arising out of the actions of independent contractors.

If the insured is using subcontractors, the Policy must include work performed “by or on behalf” of the insured. Policy shall contain no language that would invalidate or remove the insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify for claims or suits expressly excluded from coverage.

Policy shall specifically provide for a duty to defend on the part of the insurer. The City, its PGCC 4-20-22

19 Construction Services Agreement
officials, officers, agents, and employees, shall be included as additional insureds under the Products and Completed Operations coverage.

City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these requirements or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by CONTRACTOR or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from CONTRACTOR payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.

Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.

Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONTRACTOR or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONTRACTOR hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.

Enforcement of Agreement provisions (non estoppel). CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform CONTRACTOR of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.

Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the CONTRACTOR maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONTRACTOR. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.

Notice of cancellation. CONTRACTOR agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.

PGCC 4-20-22

20 Construction Services Agreement
Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.

Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.

Separation of Insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that CONTRACTOR’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.

Pass Through Clause. CONTRACTOR agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONTRACTOR, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. CONTRACTOR agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.

City’s right to revise requirements. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the CONTRACTOR a ninety (90)-day advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the CONTRACTOR, the City and CONTRACTOR may renegotiate CONTRACTOR’s compensation.

Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.

Timely notice of claims. CONTRACTOR shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from CONTRACTOR’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.

Additional insurance. CONTRACTOR shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the Work
PGCC 4-20-22

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: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director / Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: California Coastal Trail Emblem at Lovers Point Park CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class I, Existing Facilities

RECOMMENDATION
Approve installation of California Coastal Trail Emblem at Lovers Point Park

DISCUSSION
The California Coastal Trail (CCT) is one of the great trails of our nation. Once completed, it will extend 1,200 miles from Oregon to Mexico, with approximately 4 miles located on the Pacific Grove coastline. The trail passes through a myriad of local, state, and federal parks, and a variety of other public and private lands. There are multi-agency jurisdictions and varying regulations. However, for trail users these distinctions don’t matter, the diversity of environments makes it a spectacular trail to explore and recreate.

The CCT trail is identified via various trail markers. The trail markers are designed to serve as consistent and easy to use wayfinding system along the 1,200 miles of trail.

As part of grant funding agreements with the California Coastal Conservancy, for the Point Pinos Coastal Trail Project and the Great Tide Pool Projects, individual, 6”x 6” CCT trail markers were installed along the length of these two trails.

The Coastal Conservancy, which contributed approximately $2 million dollars cumulatively for these projects, has requested a major mile marker be installed in Lovers Point Park (Attachment 1). They have also allocated an additional $20,000 to allow for the fabrication and installation. This emblem will provide much-needed identity for the trail, while serving as a useful tool to build public support for its completion. The major mile marker includes the Coastal Trail logo and indicates the distance to the border with Mexico and Oregon, which is 594 and 636 respectively.

The desired location is the ground in main driveway area of Lovers Point, just North of the Beach House Restaurant. The City will fabricate a 5-foot stainless-steel frame and inlay it with the color concrete as noted in attachment 1. Because the placement of the emblem is within an existing AC walkway and does not constitute “development” as defined in the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) and as a result neither a CDP nor a CDP exemption are required.

PGCC 4-20-22

OPTIONS

1. Do not approve the installation of the California Coastal Trail Emblem FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$20,000 of grant funding has been approved by the California Coastal Conservancy and allocated via the existing Point Pinos Coastal Trail Grant Agreement, to allow for the fabrication and installation of the marker. This funding is sufficient to allow for implementation.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Complete Streets: Plan, design and implement streets, sidewalks and transportation networks that better allow access for all types of users.

Attachments
CCT major Mile Marker Doc
PGCC 4-20-22

California Coastal Trail (CCT) Major Mile Markers
California Coastal Trail Major Mile Markers are large-scale installations designed to serve as wayfinding for the Coastal Trail as well as public art. The Major Mile marker includes the Coastal Trail logo and indicates the distance to the border with Mexico and Oregon.

Major Mile Markers have already been installed in Laguna Beach, Santa Monica, Pismo Beach, Oceanside, and Fort Bragg and are being proposed in Pacific Grove, Imperial Beach and Half Moon Bay.

Example of Major Mile Marker at Laguna Beach
The Major Mile Markers are constructed using stainless steel letters and a logo stencil with colored concrete matching the Coastal Trail logo using (see pictures above and below). Implementation of the project entails two components – (1) metal fabrication and (2) installation with colored concrete. • Approximate size: 60”/ 5 feet in diameter
• Cost Ranges: $10-20k
o ~$5k for frame (Santa Monica $4.5k, Laguna $4.3k)
o ~$5-10X for installation (Santa Monica part of bigger project already tearing up concrete $4.6k, Oceanside was standalone project so included demo $9.75k) o $18k Pismo total for fabrication and installation
• Mileage: Provided by SCC Staff
o * distances are an approximation, but we the Conservancy has a standard methodology to measure the coastline length for these major mile markers • Plansfrom previous projects attached
o Color Blue: Pantone 660 or approved equivalent
o Font: Arial , minimum size 3.51” tall for CCT and minimum size .875’ for mileage o AquaTech created the stainless frame for Santa Monica, Laguna Beach, and Oceanside projects so may have the molds ready for fabrication. http://www.aquatechwaterjet.com/home-1.html PGCC 4-20-22

Installation Photos
Fabrication ofstainlesssteel inlay frame
Installation with concrete
PGCC 4-20-22

Final Photos
Santa Monica Pismo Beach
Laguna Beach Oceanside
PGCC 4-20-22

Plans
– Santa Monica
3M Marker Drawing
Sheets Santa Monic
PGCC 4-20-22

Plans – Pismo Beach
Pismo Beach
Plans.pdf
Pismo Beach Plans

2.pdf
PGCC 4-20-22

Plans
- Laguna Beach
Laguna Beach
Plans.pdf
PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

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: Jenny McAdams, Mayor Pro Tem
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Removal of Library Fines and Forgiveness of Current Outstanding Overdue Fines Action required by 4/20/2022.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Manager to return with a resolution and amendment to the Master Fee Schedule.

DISCUSSION
To support library patrons and our communities, the Pacific Grove Public Library has not charged overdue fines since the beginning of the pandemic. Library fees for the City of Pacific Grove are located on page 22 of the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Per communications with our Library Director, Diana Godwin: “Our county library consortium has been looking at the feasibility of combining catalogs to allow county library users the ability to place materials from any library on hold and have these items delivered. It's a work in progress, but one important criteria was the agreement that all participating libraries would not charge late fines. Fines have been shown to prevent patrons from returning to the library, the shame of an account with large overdue fees results in lower circulation numbers and additional loss of materials. Collecting the small amount of money that late fees produce is not worth the negative perceptions.” Ms. Godwin supports both a resolution to remove overdue fines and the needed amendment to the Master Fee Schedule.

The below information is taken from the Monterey County Board of Supervisor's November 16, 2021 Board Report regarding their recent actions of omitting fees for our Monterey County Free Libraries.

Like the County, the City of Pacific Grove are also members of GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity).

The American Library Association passed a resolution on overdue fines as a form of social inequity, and research has shown the critical importance of books in the home for early literacy and school readiness. A family that fears risk of accruing fines they cannot readily pay can too easily end up not allowing their young children to bring books home during a critical reading period. A family with access blocked due to overdue fines may not be able to use other resources, such as library computers, or access resources required for school success.

A GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity) Issue Brief Advancing Racial Equity in Public Libraries specifically calls out library fines as both institutional and structural racism, PGCC 4-20-22

stating a “library’s enforcement of fines has a disproportionate impact on people of color, who are overrepresented in among low-income populations due to the racial wealth gap” and detailing how users blocked from borrowing resources or using services such as computers then have impacts compounded across multiple institutions and throughout other areas. GARE Issue Brief Other California public library systems have stopped charging overdue fines. These include San Jose Public Library, Los Angeles County Public Library, Sonoma County Library, Tulare County Library, Santa Clara County Library, Sacramento Public Library, San Luis Obispo City/County Library, Marin County Library, and San Diego Public Library. ULC Fine Free Map

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

Financial Stability: Develop a strategic plan to better address current and future City expenditure and revenue needs while continuing to provide high quality municipal service.

ELECTRONIC ATTACHMENTS

1. Monterey County Board of Supervisor Board Report and Resolution

2. Master Fee Schedule

3. Godwin/McAdams Email

OPTIONS

1. Provide other direction.

2. Take no action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: See Goal Alignment within Discussion section.

PGCC 4-20-22

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: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Economic Development Commission Appointment
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointment of Kelsea Richmond to the Economic Development Commission for a term ending January 31, 2024

DISCUSSION
Ms. Richmond, as a Pacific Grove business owner, qualifies to be a member of the EDC.

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.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Redacted Application
PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

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: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Minutes: February 14, 2022 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive minutes.

Attachments
DEI Minutes
PGCC 4-20-22

1 MEETING MINUTES

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

TASK FORCE

REGULAR MEETING
Monday, February 14, 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/89179208141

1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
Chair Tina Rau called the meeting to order at 6 pm. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Task Force members present via Zoom Meeting: Task Force Members (Members) Kim Bui, Nadja Mark, Kristi Markowitz, and Tina Rau. Member Edward JuarezLefevre was absent.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Rau requested that Item 7D be moved to the March 14, 2022 meeting. Secretary Bui provided a date correction.

Action: Upon motion by Member Mark and seconded by Member Markowitz the Task Force approved the Agenda as amended and corrected.

Motion carried 4-0-1, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Members Bui, Mark, Markowitz, and Rau.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Member Juarez-Lefevre

3. TASK FORCE AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) Secretary Bui made announcements.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council member Poduri made announcements.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani, Carmelita Garcia and Michael Ipson

6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Action: Upon motion by Member Markowitz and seconded by Member Mark, the Task Force approved the Minutes of the January 10, 2022 Regular Meeting and the January 24, PGCC 4-20-22

2 2022 Special Study Session, as follows:

Motion carried 4-0-1 by the following vote:

AYES: Members Bui, Mark, Markowitz, and Rau.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Member Juarez-Lefevre,

7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Election of Officers
City Manager Harvey and Chair Rau provided information.

Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani
Action: Upon motion by Member Bui and seconded by Member Markowitz, the Task Force continued this item to the March 14, 2022 Regular Meeting.

Motion carried 4-0-1 by the following vote:

AYES: Members Bui, Mark, Markowitz, and Rau.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Member Juarez-Lefevre
B. Chinese Village Subcommittee
Secretary Bui provided a presentation.

Public Comment was received from Janet Cohen, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, Carmelita Garcia and Randy Sabado.

Action: The presentation was received.

C. City DEI Plan Subcommittee
Secretary Bui provided an update.

No public comments were received.

Action: The presentation was received.

D. Inclusive Crosswalk
During the Approval of the Agenda, this item was moved to the March 14, 2022 Agenda E. Vision and Objectives for the DEI Task Force
Members Mark and Markowitz provided a report.

No public comments were received.

Action: The presentation was received.

F. DEI Member Biographies
Member Mark provided a report.

Public comment was received from Lisa Ciani
PGCC 4-20-22

3 Action: Upon motion by Member Markowitz and seconded by Chair Rau, the Task Force continued this item to the March 14, 2022, Regular Meeting, as follows:

Motion carried 4-0-1 by the following vote:

AYES: Members Bui, Mark, Markowitz, and Rau
NOES: None
ABSENT: Member Juarez-Lefevre
G. “Resource Section” on PG DEI Website
Member Mark provided a report.

Public comment was received from Sharon Miller.

Action: The report was received.

NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting on March 14, 2022 at 6:00 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rau adjourned the regular meeting at approximately 7:31 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
Kim Bui
Secretary
Approved by Chair: _______________________________Date________________ PGCC 4-20-22

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: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Director
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Adoption of an Amendment to PGMC Chapter 23.73.050 pertaining to Permit Time Limits and Extensions At the 4/6/22 meeting, this item was pulled and then continued due to time constraints.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 23.73.050 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

DISCUSSION
Two (2) changes were made to the draft ordinance by order of the Council at its March 16, 2022, meeting. The changes consist of: 1) of the addition of a finding specifying that the amendment applies only to the four (4) properties that currently have active planning permits. These properties are as follows: 503 Chestnut St., 506 Walnut St., 420 Monterey Ave., and 508 Evergreen Rd; and 2) correcting the City Charter reference in Section 5.

The Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published March 24, 2022.

OPTIONS
The Council could opt not to adopt the amendment.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

This amendment will not result in a financial impact to the City.

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

Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 4-20-22

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, this ordinance applies only to the four (4) properties on the WWL as of the date it is enacted that have active Planning permits: 503 Chestnut St., 506 Walnut St., 420 Monterey Ave., and 508 Evergreen Rd,
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, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

PGCC 4-20-22

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

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, as of the date this ordinance takes effect, is on the Water Wait List described in Chapter 11.68 PGMC, the community development permit be valid for five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance, and also thereafter for one additional five (5) year optional renewal period.
(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.

PGCC 4-20-22

3 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ______ day of _________, 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 4-20-22

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: Lori Frati, Management Analyst
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution adopting the Master Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Action required by 4/20/2022.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting the master fee schedule for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23, including the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment and other changes as directed by Council.

DISCUSSION
Chapter 6.02 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) requires a schedule of fees to be reviewed annually in conjunction with the budget process and established by City Council resolution. Notice of the public hearing was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections.

In accordance with the process adopted by Council for FY 2012-13, the current fee schedule has been adjusted, where applicable, by the 4.2% increase in the Cost Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area for the period ending December 31, 2021. The CPI adjustment applies to all fees not controlled by other entities (e.g. State of California) or fees that are market driven (cemetery site sales, facility rentals, etc.). In addition to the CPI adjustment, staff has proposed changes to fees based on the City’s cost recovery policy (Council Policy No. 400-4) and Council’s direction to recover 100% of the costs associated with providing services to the public (with certain specific exceptions).

The attached Master Fee Schedule is structured to provide the current fiscal year fees and the proposed fees for FY 2022-23. Changes other than those that resulted from the application of the CPI and the Sewer Rate Study are highlighted on the schedule.

In the process of City departments reviewing their current fees, some services and fees have been deleted due to changes in policy or change of standard operational procedures within the department.

In an effort to achieve City Council goals, staff will be retaining a fee study consultant to review the CDD fees in the next fiscal year. The last fee study was completed in 2018. To assist in evaluating cost-recovery rates, staff also may request consideration of a review of the overall fee schedule as part PGCC 4-20-22

of the FY 22/23 Proposed Budget process to assist in ensuring the rates reflect changing staff processes and costs.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Staff anticipates the recommended fee additions and changes correspond to the costs of providing services for FY 2022-23.

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

Attachments
Recommended Fee Schedule
CPI ending December 2021
Council Policy 400-4
Resolution Adopting MFS
PGCC 4-20-22

City of Pacific Grove

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

RECOMMENDED
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
PGCC 4-20-22

CONTENTS
General Administration (Fees Applicable to All Departments and Programs) 3 City Clerk 5
Cemetery 6
Community Development 10
Fire 19
Library 22
Lighthouse 23
Police 24
Public Works 28
Recreation 29
Sewer 33
Sewer Rate Sheet 34
PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
The City may bill for special services, such as support for special events, cleanup of hazardous materials spills, protection of public property and public safety due to unusual events. Billings may be waived or reduced by action of the City Manager.

Based on
total actual
direct and
indirect costs
Based on total
actual direct
and indirect
costs
01-4406 Document Photocopy and Report Fees (Soft or Hard) (per page) $0.25 $0.25 01-4406 Digital Production - CD, DVD, Flash drives for PRA information requests and presentations at meetings by the public (City will not allow the use of flash drives provided by the public for reasons of virus protection)
Actual Cost Actual Cost
01-4406 Notary fees (per signature)
* Unless otherwise specified in Government Code § 8211 $15.00 per signature
$15.00 per
signature
01-4513 Returned check processing (per item) $25 $25
01-4534 Credit Card Payment Processing Fee
$1.00 - $50.00 $2 $2
$51.00 - $100.00 $3 $3
$101.00 - $200.00 $5 $5
$201.00 - and up @ 4% of charged amount 4% of
charged
4% of
charged
Transient Occupancy Taxes may not be charged on a credit card 01-4406 Copy of Annual Budget or Annual Financial Report Actual Costs Actual Costs 01-4121 Business License Administration Fee, per License If paid by August 1 (on time payment/standard) $21 $21
If paid after August 1 (late payment) $47 $47
01-4674 City Hall Facility Rental Fees:

Security Deposit (SECURITY) $64 $67
Clean-up Fee Actual Costs Actual Costs
Special Audio Visual Equipment Use Deposit $256 $267
Council Chambers – first four hours of use $135 $141
per hour after four hours $34 $35
Forest Avenue Conference Room – first four hours $53 $55 per hour after four hours $13 $14
City Manager Conference Room – first four hours $107 $111 per hour after four hours $28 $29
01-4516 Fuel sales to outside agencies Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Water entitlement rights - Per Acre Foot Per Year $250,000 $250,000 Water entitlement rights - Per one tenth (.10) Acre Foot Per Year. (30% discount expires 06/30/22)
$25,000 per
.10 AFY
$25,000 per
.10 AFY
Water entitlement rights application processing fee. (30% discount expires 06/30/22)
$442 $461
Tobacco Retailer License $384 $400
3 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT # GENERAL ADMINISTRATION F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees

FILMING FEES
Use of Public Areas for Motion Picture and Still Photography Productions (PGMC §16.64.030), Daily Fee Calculated for 100% Cost Recovery and Approved by the Administrative Services Director (May be reduced not more than 50% with City Manager approval) Minor Film Permit This is a permit would primarily apply to still photography and really minor filming applications such as little or no crew. This type of permit typically would only require review from Police Personnel with little to minimal involvement from other departments.
$148 $154
Mid-Level Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major photoshoot or minor commercial filming application. It would require coordination between Police Personnel and Parks and Recreation staff for use of City property.
$502 $523
Major Film Permit This is a permit that would primarily apply to a major commercial filming - Movies or Television shows. It could be productions that would require building stages, sites with unique environmental or location conditions; or crews with crews of 30 or more personnel. This type of application review would require significant review and input from a variety of City staff, including Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works.
$817 $851
Land Lease for Filming (Fee subject to negotiation; fee study and recommended baseline amounts are provided for reference, parking lots may be charged by space)
.15 / square
foot per hour
.15 / square
foot per hour
The City Manager may decrease fees set forth in this schedule if s/he determines that the cost of providing a particular service will be substantially less than the normal cost of such service or if programs or services are reduced.

The City may, at its discretion, choose to apply a late payment fee to outstanding amounts due to the City that remain unpaid thirty days after the due date. The penalty will be set at 10% of the amount owed, but no less than $25.

Min. $25 Min. $25
4 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT # CITY CLERK F/Y 21-
22 Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
01-4406 CLERK CERTIFICATION
Certification of Pacific Grove Residency and or Proof of Life, per person $15 per signature
$15 per
signature
Certification of Documents (Per document) $15 $15
01-4406 PUBLIC RECORDS
Copies standard 8.5" x 11", black and white
(ordinances, resolutions, campaign finance and economic statements) 0.10 per page 0.10 per page
01-4513 ELECTIONS
Under certain circumstances, the City must collect fees as prescribed by other governing bodies, such as the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The City has no control over these fees.

Nomination Papers Filing Fee (EC Section 10228) $25 $25 Candidates Statement Filing Set by
County
Set by
County
Intent to File Initiative (EC Section 9202(b)) $200 $200 Late filing fee per late day (As set forth by State) $10 $10 01-4513 MISCELLANOUS
Administrative Records (Compilation/Creation) Actual Costs Actual Costs
Appeal Fee (Beautification, Traffic Commission, all others not listed elsewhere) $42 $44
Annual Subscription Service: Agenda and Minutes $28 $29 Agenda only - -
5 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Proposed F/Y 22- 23 Fees
75-4481 CEMETERY SITE SALES
Single Burial Site, Adult $4,618 $4,812
Single Burial Site, Child $2,311 $2,408
Double Garden Crypt-In Ground $8,000 $8,336
Urn Garden, Double-In Ground $3,451 $3,596
Urn Garden, Single-In Ground $2,160 $2,251
Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden $2,340 $2,438
Urn Sites–Double Other than Urn Garden $3,837 $3,998
Urn Sites - Triple $4,124 $4,297
Columbarium Niche (1-4 urns) $7,669 $7,991
75-4482 Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Niche $3,057 $3,185
Unit 1 – Mausoleum Double Niche $5,991 $6,243
Unit 1 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $14,440 $15,046
Unit 2 – Mausoleum Double Niche $5,991 $6,243
Unit 2 – Mausoleum Single Crypt $14,439 $15,045
Unit 2- Mausoleum Double Crypt $26,491 $27,604
Unit 2- Mausoleum Memorial Garden – per urn $315 $328
75-4481 New Columbarium (1 - 4 urns) $7,669 $7,991
75-4481 Memorial Wall Plaque Site $67 $70
86-4480 ENDOWMENT CARE
Burial Site, Adult $1,093 $1,139
Burial Site, Child $561 $585
Double Garden Crypt $1,093 $1,139
Urn Garden, Double $673 $701
Urn Garden, Single $601 $626
Urn Sites, Other than Urn Garden (In Ground, per Urn) $601 $626 Urn Sites, Double - Other Than Urn Garden $673 $701
Urn Sites - Triple $1,093 $1,139
Columbarium Niche $734 $765
Mausoleum Single Niche $673 $701
Double Niche $734 $765
Unit 2- Mausoleum Memorial Garden $123 $128
Mausoleum Crypt $734 $765
75-4484 LABOR CHARGES
Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee Excluding Memorial Garden Sites and Child Sites $1,122 $1,169
Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Memorial Garden Sites $281 $293 Grounds Maintenance - One Time Fee for Child Sites $561 $585 6 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Proposed F/Y 22- 23 Fees
Open/Close Burial Site, Adult $1,916 $1,996
Open/Close Burial Site, Child $953 $993
Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (1st opening) $1,782 $1,857 Open/Close Double Garden Crypt (subsequent opening) $1,648 $1,717 Set In-Ground Marker $539 $562
Set In-Ground Marker with Border $806 $840
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker $820 $854
Set In-Ground Urn and Marker with Border $1,019 $1,062
Set or Remove In-Ground Vase $163 $170
Set In-Ground Vase with Border $362 $377
Add border to marker after original placement $539 $562 Add border to vase after original placement $396 $413
Remove In-Ground Urn & Marker or In-Ground Urn & marker with Border
$263 $274
Remove In-Ground Marker or In-Ground Marker with Border $324 $338 Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 1 for inurnment $953 $993
Place plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $199 $207 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 1 Mausoleum Niche after inurnment
$529 $551
Replace Vase Holder (Unit 1 Niche & Columbarium) - vase holder cost plus one & one-half hour labor
$228 + Vase Pkg $238 + Vase Pkg
Remove Urn - Unit 1 Niche $263 $274
Open Mausoleum Niche Unit 2 for inurnment $754 $786
Place plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche at inurnment $234 $244 Place/Remove plaque or vase on Unit 2 Mausoleum Niche after inurnment
$428 $446
Replace Vase Holder (Unit 2 Niche, New Columbarium) – vase holder cost plus one hour labor
$163 + Vase Pkg $170 + Vase Pkg
Remove Urn - Unit 2 Niche $263 $274
Open Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $1,087 $1,133
Place/Remove Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche at Inurnment $133 $139 Place Plaque or Vase on Columbarium niche after Inurnment $596 $621 Remove Urn - Columbarium Niche $296 $308
Open New Columbarium Niche to Place Urn $621 $647
Place Plaque or Vase on New Columbarium niche $163 $170 Remove plaque or urn from New Columbarium niche $163 $170 7 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Proposed F/Y 22- 23 Fees
Open Mausoleum Crypt for inurnment $887 $924
Open Mausoleum Crypt for burial $1,420 $1,480
75-4484 LABOR CHARGES
Open Underground Unit 2 Mausoleum Crypt for Burial $1,687 $1,758 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt at Burial $199 $207 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 1 Crypt other than at Burial $428 $446 Place plaque or vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt at Burial $133 $139 Place Plaque or Vase on Mausoleum Unit 2 Crypt after Burial $577 $601 Open Memorial Garden Site (place urn) $471 $491
Place Plaque on Memorial Garden Site/Memorial Wall $163 $170 Remove Urn from Memorial Garden Site $362 $377
Remove Plaque from Memorial Garden Site/Memorial Wall $428 $446 Remove Niche/Crypt Slug $296 $308
Replace Cracked Mausoleum Granite Plate (Unit 1) $163 + Plate Cost $170 + Plate Cost Place Cameos $163 Per Hour $170 Per Hour
Marker Rubbing $115 Per Hour $120 Per Hour
Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (lower level) $1,426 $1,486 Disinter Casket, Double Garden Crypt (upper level) $1,286 $1,340 Disinter In-Ground Casket, Child $887 $924
Disinter In-Ground Casket, Adult $1,286 $1,340
Pallbearers – weekdays only $282 $294
Saturday Service (4-hour minimum at overtime rate) $562 $586 Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum)
$86 Per hour, per
staff person -
Minimum 2 staff
for 2 hours
($344)
$90 Per hour, per
staff person -
Minimum 2 staff
for 2 hours
($360)
Overtime Hourly Rate (2-hour minimum)
$94 Per hour per
staff person -
Minimum 2 staff
for 2 hours ($377)
$98 Per hour per
staff person -
Minimum 2 staff
for 2 hours ($392)
75-4481 DEED PROCESSING
Deed Fee $233 $243
Replacement Deed Fee $35 $36
Deed Transfers, Document Processing Fee $233 $243
CA Disposition of Human Remain permit fee $12 $13
8 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # EL CARMELO CEMETERY F/Y 21-22 Fees Proposed F/Y 22- 23 Fees
Endowment transfer fee: Upon transfer, the party transferring deed shall pay the difference between the endowment care rate paid with initial deed and the current endowment care rate.

Grounds Maintenance One-Time Fee. Upon transfer, the new site owner shall pay the one-time Grounds Maintenance Fee based on the type of
burial site.
75-4481 PRODUCTS
Adult Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Liner, Double Garden Crypt (taxable portion) (Pre-set – charge sales tax only)
At Cost At Cost
Child Liner, Single At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – in-ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 1 At Cost At Cost
Vase Package B58– Mausoleum Unit 2 crypts At Cost At Cost Vase Package – Mausoleum Unit 2 niches At Cost At Cost
Vase Package – New Columbarium At Cost At Cost
Vase Holder - In-Ground At Cost At Cost
Vase Insert - In Ground At Cost At Cost
(1) The City Manager has the ability to approve a 10% resident discount on Cemetery Site sales only for a specified period of time during the year. This discount would be included in an advertisement and designed to assist with advance planning. 9 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
01-4413 GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
General Plan Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee) $5,291 $5,513 General Plan Update 5% of permit
fee
5% of permit
fee
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Actual Cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee) $2,642 $2,753 01-4401 SUBDIVISIONS
Tentative Tract Map - Base $2,394 $2,495
Tentative Tract Map - Per Lot $290 $302
Final Tract Map - Base + Recording Fee $2,394 $2,495
Final Tract Map - Per Lot $370 $386
Lot Line Adjustment $1,975 $2,058
Final Parcel Map (plus recording fees) $2,092 $2,180
Tentative Parcel Map - Base $2,092 $2,180
Lot Mergers $1,989 $2,073
Certificate of Compliance (Min. fee plus hourly fee if more than 12 hours required plus applicable attorney fees)
$1,942 $2,024
01-4407 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)* - This represents a deposit for staffing time for a full EIR. All staff time will be charged at the fully-burdened rate against the deposit, along with all publishing and noticing costs 50% of EIR
cost
50% of EIR
cost
Exemption* $290 $302
Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declaration* $6,429 $6,699 Mitigation Monitoring $4,739 $4,938
Negative Declaration Addendum $4,739 $4,938
* Filing fees by external agencies not included
01-4607 Environmental Enhancement Fund (Fund 5) $2.30/sq. ft. $2.40/sq. ft. 01-4401 USE PERMITS
Use Permit and Amendments – Single Family $1,911 $1,991 Use Permit and Amendments – Multi-Family, Commercial, Institutional, all other uses (Actual cost – Minimum fee plus hourly fee)
$3,117 $3,248
Interpretations of Permitted Uses Lists $1,283 $1,337
Major administrative use permits $1,252 $1,305
Minor administrative use permits $1,235 $1,287
Moved under
Transient Use
License
section delete

Administrative Home Sharing use permit $335 $349
01-4401 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Architectural Permit – Single Family $3,184 $3,318
10 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
Architectural Permit – Multi-Family four units or less $3,896 $4,060 Architectural Permit - Multi-Family five units or more $4,395 $4,580 Architectural Permit - Multi-Family units, each additional unit above the initial five units
$1,694 $1,765
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 10,000 sq. ft. or less
$3,294 $3,432
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 10,001- 50,000 sq. ft.
$4,888 $5,093
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft.
$9,872 $10,287
Architectural Permit - Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, all others. Over 100,000 sq. ft.
$12,567 $13,095
Administrative Architectural Permit $1,533 $1,597
Administrative Design Change $1,533 $1,597
01-4402 COUNTER REVIEW PERMITS
Counter Review & Determination - no new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than ½ hour required)
$221 $230
Counter Review & Determination - new square footage (Plus hourly fee if more than 3 hours required)
$894 $932
Zoning Confirmation for Business License Permit $154 $160 Massage Permit Application $154 $160
01-4403 SIGN PERMITS
Downtown Sign Permit $571 $595
Administrative Sign Permit $894 $932
Sign Permit $2,339 $2,437
01-4754 HISTORIC REVIEW
Historic Demolition Permit $5,008 $5,218
Off-site relocation permit $5,008 $5,218
Historic Resources Inventory Determinations (Additions/Deletions) $1,915 $1,995 On-site relocation permit $2,504 $2,609
Historic Preservation Permit $1,811 $1,887
Initial Historic Screening $471 $491
* Historic Determination are not eligible for multiple permit discounts. 01-4401 VARIANCES
Variances and Amendments $2,659 $2,771
11 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
Administrative Variances and Amendments $1,487 $1,549
01-4401 STORMWATER
Tier 3 and 4 – 15,000 square feet of impervious surface or greater (incl. 2 reviews)
$1,683 $1,754
Tier 2 – 5,000-15,000 square feet impervious surface (incl. 2 reviews) $1,122 $1,169 Tier 1 – 2,500-5,000 square feet impervious surface $705 $735 Each subsequent Tier 2 review $494 $515
Inspection Fee $131 $137
Annual Inspection and re-inspection $197 $205
Each subsequent Tier 1 review $311 $324
01-4401 APPEALS
Appeals of enforcement and zoning ordinance interpretations $2,545 $2,652 Appeals/hearings of planning permits
25% of base
permit fee or
$1,090
whichever is
greater +
noticing costs
25% of base
permit fee or
$1,136
whichever is
greater +
noticing costs
Request for Zoning Administrative Hearing or Decision
10% of base
permit or
$522.00,
whichever is
greater +
noticing costs
10% of base
permit or
$544.00,
whichever is
greater +
noticing costs
Appeal fees for Coastal Development Permits are waived. 01-4401 OVERLAY FEES
Area of Special and Biological Significance 5% of permit fees
5% of permit
fees
Butterfly Buffer 5% of permit
fees
5% of permit
fees
01-4401 NOTICING
Mailing Actual Cost Actual Cost
Publishing $364 $379
Delete Re-Noticing of Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator Public Hearings $409 $426 Delete Re-Noticing of ARB or Zoning Administrator Hearing $95 $99 Delete Re-Noticing of ARB or Zoning Administrator Public Hearings on Historic Permits
$409 $426
12 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
01-4401 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
Waiver of De Minims Development plan permit $2,244 $2,338 Single Family Residence up to 1,500 square feet $2,244 $2,338 Single Family Residence over 1,500 square feet $3,928 $4,093 Multi-family Residential $2,725 plus
$926 per unit
$2,839 plus
$965 per unit
Commercial or Industrial up to 10,000 sq. ft. $5,611 $5,847 Commercial or Industrial 10,001- 50,000 sq. ft. $11,220 $11,691 Commercial or Industrial 50,001- 100,000 sq. ft. $56,102 $58,458 Commercial or Industrial over 100,000 sq. ft. $112,204 $116,917 Grading less than 100 cubic yards $561 $585
Grading 101- 10,000 cubic yards $2,244 $2,338
Grading 10,001- 100,000 cubic yards+B16 $4,488 $4,676
Grading greater than 100,000 cubic yards $8,976 $9,353
Lot Line Adjustment $2,244 $2,338
Subdivision $2,244 per lot $2,338 per lot
Emergency Permit $1,683 $1,754
Amendment 50% of base
permit fee
50% of base
permit fee
Temporary Event $2,805 $2,923
Extension - Fee may be waived, if permit is subject to Water Waiting List 25% of base permit fee
25% of base
permit fee
01-4123 TRANSIENT USE LICENSES
Initial STR Application Review $396 $413
Application Renewal $243 $253
Annual License $653 $680
Added
language
Home Sharing License Annual Renewal $183 $191
Moved from
Use Permit
section
Initial Home Sharing License Application Review $335 $349 Transient License Change or Reprint Fee $31 $32
01-4503 CODE ENFORCEMENT
Delete code
section
Abandonment or purchase of City property (§ 23.64.300, PGMC) $3,372 $3,514 Abandoned Property Registration Fee $214 $223
Investigation fees, Code violations (Actual Cost) Actual Cost Actual Cost 01-4503 VACANT PROPERTIES
Inspection per property (min. or actual cost) $161 $168 Registration per property $161 $168
01-4406 COPIES
Copies, hard and soft (scanned) 0.25 per page 0.25 per page 01-4401 MISCELLANEOUS
Certificate of Use and Occupancy $734 $765
13 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
County Filing Fees As determined
by County
As determined
by County
Density bonus $2,174 $2,265
General File Research $61 $64
Hourly Fee $125 $130
Inquiry Fee $349 $364
Miscellaneous Project Review/Document Preparation $222 $231 Multiple Permits for Single Family residential applications only. Highest fee no discount; all lower fees discounted 25%
For single
family
applications
For single
family
applications
Outdoor Sidewalk Dining Permit $420 $438
Sidewalk Vendor Permit $47 $49
Permit Extension (Fee may be waived if permit is subject to Water Waiting List) 25% of permit base fee
25% of permit
base fee
Pre-Application Meeting / Preliminary Project Review $249 $259 Records Management and Retention (per file) $56 $58
Rental Property Registration $228 $238
Revocable License for Encroachments (plus hourly fee after 2 hours) $835 $870 Statement of Compliance (hourly fee if more than 4 hours required) $471 $491 Tree Permit with Development $284 $296
Tree Permit with Development Violation $241 $251
Delete Water Wait List $239 $249
ABC License Review Fee $176 $183
01-4425 ANIMAL REGULATION - KEEPING AND BREEDING PERMITS - §10 Animal Keeping Permit $175 $182
Animal Keeping Permit Annual Renewal $42 $44
Commercial Breeding Permit, Cats $149 $155
Commercial Breeding Permit, Dogs $149 $155
Incidental Breeding Permit, Cats (per litter) $74 $77
Incidental Breeding Permit, Dogs (per litter) $74 $77

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES
01-4521 Tree Permit - Single Tree Removal or Single Tree Trimming $65 $68 Tree Permit – For each additional tree removal and/or trimming $30 $31 Tree Permit Application Fee $96 $100
01-4207 Tree replant in-lieu fee $824 $859
15-4701 HOUSING FEES
Rehabilitation & Sewer Loan Payoff Demand - Per Statement $122 $127 Reconveyance Fee $185 $193
County Recording Fee (billed by Monterey County Recorder) Actual Cost Actual Cost 14 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
15-4701 HOUSING REHAB LOAN FEES (CalHOME Loan Funded Projects) Loan Processing $1,994 $2,078
Underwriting $613 $639
Property Tax Verification $61 $64
Loan Document Preparation – SFD $360 $375
Loan Document Preparation – Manufactured Housing $428 $446 Inspection To Determine Scope of Work (Actual Cost) $265 $276 Contractor Selection (Actual Cost) $265 $276
Development of Work Write-up & Specifications (Actual Cost) $2,532 $2,638 Project Bidding (Actual Cost) $1,233 $1,285
Progress Inspection/Payment Authorization (Actual Cost) $132 $138 15-4701 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MONITORING - ANNUAL FEE PER

HOUSEHOLD
Affordable Units (New description to include all property addresses listed above)
$122 $127
Registered Units $122 $127

BUILDING AND PERMITTING FEES
ACCT. # PLAN CHECK
01-4203 Electrical Permit (not requiring plan check) $140 $146 Plumbing Permit (not requiring plan check) $140 $146
Mechanical Permit (not requiring plan check) $140 $146
Solar voltaic system $303 $316
Non-Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in larger project) $135 $141 Structural Plan Review (hourly not included in a larger project) $166 $173 01-4404
Plan review extension
$686 per
90 days
after the
first 180
d
$715 per 90
days after the
first 180 days
01-4203 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Combination Permit:

Value up to $500.00 $130 $135
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $130 $135
Plan Checking — A combination permit fee shall be payable in cases of new construction in lieu of the separate fees. A plan review fee equal to 75 percent of the fee for single-family residential projects and 90 percent of the permit fee for all other projects shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review.

Permit fees shall be based on the value of improvements as follows:
15 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof) $11 $11 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $274 $286 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $45 $47 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $1,245 $1,297 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$32 $33
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $2,002 $2,086 Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$19 $20
Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $3,069 $3,198 Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$15 $16
Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $9,902 $10,318 Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$14 $15
Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $17,615 $18,355 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $9 $9 Single Permit:

Value up to $500.00 $112 $120
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00(first $500.00) $112 $117
Value of $501.00 to $2,000.00 (each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof) $6 $6 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (first $2,000.00) $213 $222 Value of $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $32 $33 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (first $25,000.00) $904 $942 Value of $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$20 $21
Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (first $50,000.00) $1,447 $1,508 Value of $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$14 $15
16 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (first $100,000.00) $2,193 $2,285 Value of $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$11 $11
Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (first $500,000.00) $7,014 $7,309 Value of $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof)
$10 $10
Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (first $1,000,000.00) $12,113 $12,622 Value of $1,000,001.00 and up (each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof) $6 $6 The Valuation for new construction shall be the full cost (labor and materials) of the construction or a minimum of $125 $250 per square foot (for a combination permit including plumbing, mechanical, electrical and building).

On-site storm water management plan review and inspection (assumes non-Low Impact Development; includes plan review of 1-hour and the required field inspections.)
$375 $391
Additional fee if LID requirements or additional time required, per hour $125 $130 Building Permits Extension
$1,149 per 90
days after
first 180 days
$1,197 per 90
days after
first 180 days
01-4203 OTHER INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS
The following are minimum hourly fees. If the total cost to the City is greater than the fees shown below, the actual cost shall be recovered. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, the hourly wages and benefits of the employees involved: and reimbursement for any professional services that are directly related to the inspection or review.

Inspections outside of normal business hours (24 hour minimum) $325 $339 Re-inspection fees assessed under provisions of CBC § 108.8 $219 $228 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated including but not limited to Historic preservation inspection fees
$136 $142
Traffic control plan review $172 $179
Change of Street Address $172 $179
Alternate methods of construction (hourly fee, 2 hour minimum) $345 $359 Owner/building surcharge in addition to permit fee 20% 20% Electric Vehicle Charging Station - residential $253 $264 17 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
Electric Vehicle Charging Station - commercial $431 $449 Temporary Occupancy $345 $359
ASBS Stormwater Inspection Fee min. deposit (Fee calculation of 26 rainy season inspections)
$3,395 $3,538
Stormwater Annual Post-Construction BMP Inspection $197 $205 Additional plan review due to changes/additions/revisions to approved plans per hour (1/2 hour min.)
$106 $110
01-4404 Wireless Encroachment / Public Right of Way Permit. $482 $502 01-4203 Grading Inspection (hourly fee, 1-hour minimum) $106 $110 Grading Plan Checking (hourly fee, ½-hour minimum) $106 $110 01-4203 Excavation Review/Inspection (except utility companies) $264 $275 01-4401
Add Language
Residential Zoning Records Report (RZRR) & Sewer Lateral Report combined) $191 $346 Sewer Lateral Report Review $141 $147
Investigative fee for work without proper City permits
Cost equal to
the permit cost
plus staff time
to
investigate
Cost equal to
the permit cost
plus staff time
to
investigate
01-4203 Excavation and Inspection Services
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (per hour with a ½-hour minimum)
$125 $130
Encroachment permit: street opening/excavation $247 $257 Encroachment permit: driveway $247 $257
Encroachment permit: sidewalk $163 $170
Encroachment: temporary (e.g., building construction requiring scaffolding in Right-of-Way
$247 $257
Encroachment permit: permanent underground (e.g. utility line) $247 $257 Encroachment permit: permanent above ground (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.) $247 $257 Encroachment permit, annual charge for permanent above-ground encroachment (e.g. retaining wall, fence, etc.)
$3.41/ sq. ft. $3.55/ sq. ft.

Encroachment permit hourly processing fee, if more than 2 hours review or inspection required.
$125 $130
Annual encroachment permit (Encompasses up to 40 utility openings per year) $8,886 $9,259 18 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees

FIRE PREVENTION
01-4436 Fire Inspection/Permit Required Due to Materials, Processes, or Occupancies
Engine Company Inspections (internal inspection) No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Engine Company Inspections - Subsequent re inspections $94 $98 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections -initial inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - First re-inspection No Charge No Charge Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Second re-inspection $104 $108
Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Third re-inspection $208 $217 Fire Prevention Bureau Inspections - Fourth & each re-inspection $520 $542 Annual Day Care Inspection (Six or more children) $68 $71 Community Care Facility Inspections
Pre-Inspection Fee < 25 Occupants $149 $155
> 25 Occupants $254 $265
Fire Clearance Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $149 $155
> 50 Occupants $254 $265
Annual Inspection Fee 7 – 50 Occupants $149 $155
> 50 Occupants $254 $265
High Rise Inspection $1,051 $1,095
Fire Plan review and inspections, trade show set-up review $68 $71 Fire hydrant flow test (per hydrant) $79 $82
Fireworks permit $196 $204
Special Event Tent/Canopy permit < 200 square feet (during regular business hours; after hours inspection fees vary based on overtime rates) 400 - 1,000 square feet $146 $152
1000 – 2,000 square feet $202 $210
>2,000 square feet $254 $265
Unauthorized Work Double
Permit Fee
Double
Permit Fee
Unauthorized Occupancy $104 $108
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Residential

Building
Plan Check
Fee

Building
Plan Check
Fee
19 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
Fire Department Review of Building Plans, Commercial
20% of
Building
Plan Check
Fee
20% of
Building
Plan Check
Fee
Project Consultation Fee
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Expedited Plan Checks
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fire Service Underground systems: Plan Check/Inspection/Flush (includes plan review, inspection, permit approval, Flush system) $1,051 $1,095
Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review Fee - Internal $0
Plan Review & Inspection (1-5 heads) in-house review $446 $465 Plan Review & Inspection (6-180 heads), in-house review $849 $885 Plan Review & Inspection (>181 heads), in-house review $849 $885 Fire Protection System Plan Check Fees-Automatic Fire Sprinkler System > 180 Heads (external review), i.e. new system
$685 +
contractor
cost
$714+
contractor
cost
Fire Sprinkler System Plan Review Fee (External)
$446 +
contractor
cost
$465 +
contractor
cost
Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot and Clean Agent) — New System
$849 $885
Fixed Fire Extinguishing Systems (Hood & Duct, Spray Boot and Clean Agent) — Alerations, relocation, or addition
$547 $570
Fire Alarm System Review $631 $658
Fire Alarm System Review – (external review) Variable Variable Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Installation, Review & Inspection $245 $255 Medical Gas Review & Inspection $245 $255
Special Events Stand-By (Fire) Actual
Costs
Actual
Costs
Hazardous Materials Response Actual
Costs
Actual
Costs
01-4502
Penalty if appointment is made for a system test or inspection and contractor/developer (or their representative) is not ready and did not call to cancel/reschedule.

Actual
Costs
Actual
Costs
DUI Response
Fully
Burdened
Cost
Fully
Burdened
Cost

ADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTS
Fire Alarm System False Alarm Response
20 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # FIRE F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
01-4439 First call in 12-month period - No charge $0 $0 Second call in 12-month period $20 $21
Third call in 12-month period $32 $33
Fourth call in 12-month period $62 $65
Fifth call in 12-month period $104 $108
6th and all subsequent calls $520 $542
01-4439
Vehicle Rates - Based on CA Office of Emergency Services (OES) Rates (updated by the OES annually) – Charged per incident (Rates updated to reflect OES rates)
Sedan $119 $119
Pickup/Utility $140 $135
SUV $205 $194
Van $194 $191
Other-Rescue) – ¾ ton and above $230 $224
POV (Privately Owned Vehicle) Rate per mile $0.560 $0.585 Apparatus GPM Hourly Rates:
1 – 1,000 (E6433) $127 $127
1,501 – 2,000 (T 6474) $140 $140

HYPERBARIC CHAMBER
04-4609 Carbon Monoxide Treatment $1,082 $1,127
Standard Hyperbaric Treatment for Decompression Illness (first 5 hours) $6,068 $6,323 Standard Hyperbaric Treatment Extensions (per each 75 minutes of extended treatment)
$574 $598
Facility Use Fee - Per Hour - In lieu of Treatment Fees (First hour) $1,214 $1,265 Fees not paid within a reasonable period of time will be subject to the City’s late payment fee.

Min. $25 Min. $25
21 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # LIBRARY F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
01-4455 OVERDUE FINES AND OTHER PENALTIES
Delete Children’s items (per day with a $5.00 maximum) $0.25 $0.25 Delete All other items (per day with a $10.00 maximum) $0.50 $0.50 01-4455 OTHER FEES AND RENTALS
Photocopies (per black & white copy) $0.15 $0.15
Photocopies (per color copy) $0.25 $0.25
Computer printout (per page) $0.15 $0.15
01-4455 CARD REPLACEMENT
Replace borrower’s card $3 $3
01-4455 LOST /DAMAGED MATERIAL REPLACEMENT/REPAIR
Re-cataloging/processing charge for lost book or recording $3 $3 Charges for lost or damaged items will be made at "Cost, replacement price " as listed in the item record of the Koha Library Catalog. Actual Cost Actual Cost 22 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # POINT PINOS LIGHTHOUSE
F/Y 21-22
Adult
Fees
F/Y 21-22
Children 7-
17 Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Adult
Fees
Proposed F/Y 22-23
Children 7-17 Fees
01-4451 Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Entrance Fee
(Suggested Donation) $5 $2 $5 $2
New Fee
Private Lighthouse Tour Fee (Tours
organized by schools and non-profit
entities are not subject to Lighthouse
Fees.)
$135 based on 2 hour
fully burden rate of
one staff member +
admission fees based
on participants
23 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 21-
22 Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
01-4426 PARKING ENFORCEMENT, MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS

14.08.010 Parking on ice plant $48 $48

14.12.010 Parking on golf course $268 $268

14.12.020 Violation to turf – Golf Course/Park $64 $64

16.12.055 Tamper with chalk marks $125 $125

16.32.130 Parking on park grounds $48 $48

16.40.030 Storing vehicle on street $48 $48

16.40.040 Storing vehicle on street - Removal by Police $125 $125

16.40.045 Overnight Parking of Oversize Vehicles or Trailers (10pm-5am) $48 $48

16.40.050 Parking for repair $48 $48

16.40.060 Parallel parking $48 $48

16.40.070 Parallel parking, one-way street $48 $48

16.40.080 Parallel parking, one-way roadway $48 $48

16.40.110 Angle Parking $48 $48

16.40.130 Angle Parking/12” from barrier $48 $48

16.40.160 Parking Adjacent to Schools - Sign Compliance $48 $48

16.40.170 Parking On Narrow Streets $48 $48

16.40.185 Parking on North Side of Mermaid Avenue $48 $48

16.40.190 Failure to Set Parking Brake $91 $91

16.40.200(b) Parking Within 20’ of Intersection $48 $48

16.40.260 Temporary No Parking $48 $48

16.40.210 Peddlers, vendors - Unlawful Parking $48 $48

16.40.280 City Lots, Angle Parking $48 $48

16.40.290 City Lot, Use of Single Space Only $48 $48

16.40.300 City Lots, Reserved Spaces $48 $48

16.40.360(a) No Parking – Red Zone $48 $48

16.40.360(b-d) Curb markings – yellow/white/green $48 $48

16.40.360(f) Handicapped Zone $350 $350

16.40.430 Blocking Alley $48 $48

16.40.500 Bus Zone $48 $48

16.40.510-535 Overtime Parking or Evasion of Parking Restrictions $48 $48

16.40.540 Parking in Business District $48 $48

16.40.550 No Parking Anytime $48 $48

16.40.555 No Parking Certain Hours $48 $48

16.40.560 No Parking 4 am-6 am $48 $48

16.40.575 Parking - Commercial Vehicle in Residential 2:00 AM to 4:00 $48 $48

16.40.580 Parking, Over Marked Space $48 $48

16.40.585 Parking in Privately Owned Lots $48 $48

16.40.610 Displaying Vehicle for Sale $48 $48

16.41.040 Resident Parking $48 $48
24 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 21-
22 Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees

16.42.100(a) Meter Violation – expired $48 $48

16.68.020 No tour bus parking $268 $268

16.68.030 Parked bus with engine running $268 $268

18.36.030 House Cars on Private Property $48 $48

18.36.040 House Cars on Streets /Public Property $48 $48 01-4501 5200 (a) No Front Plates $48 $48
5204 (a) No Current Tab Displayed $48 $48
4000 (a) Expired Registration $48 $48
21211 (b) Parking in bicycle path $48 $48
2500.1 Parked in Fire Lane $125 $125
22500(a) Parking in intersection $48 $48
22500(b) Parking in crosswalk $48 $48
22500(e) Parking driveway $48 $48
22500(f) Parking on sidewalk $48 $48
22500 (g) Obstructing Traffic $48 $48
22500(h) Double parking $48 $48
22500 (i) Blocking Wheelchair Access $350 $350
22502(a) Parking more than 18” from curb or on wrong side of roadway $48 $48 22505 (e) (1) Parked Wrong Way on One Way $48 $48
22507.8(a) Unauthorized parking in Handicapped zone $350 $350 22507.8 (c) (2) Parked in Crosshatched Portion of Disabled Space $350 $350 22514 Park, stop or leave vehicle within 15 feet of Fire hydrant $48 $48 22515 Unattended Vehicle with Engine On $48 $48
01-4502 Parking Citation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within 21 Days) $25 $25 01-4502 Correctable Code Violation - Admin Fee $10 $10
01-4502 MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS
Municipal Code Violation - 1st Violation $100 $100
Municipal Code Violation - 2nd Violation within 1 year $200 $200 Municipal Code Violation - Each Additional Violation within 1 year $500 $500 Municipal Code Violation Late Fee (If Not Paid or Contested within 30 Days)
$25 $25
01-4204 ANIMAL REGULATION — DOG LICENSES - PGMC § 10.04.010 Annual Dog License Fee, Altered Dog $21 $22
Annual Dog License Fee, Unaltered Dog $48 $50
Dog License, Delinquent Penalty (after 30 days) $25 $26 Dog License, Replacement Tag $10 $10
01-4425 ANIMAL REGULATION - IMPOUND FEES - PGMC § 10.04.100 Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Licensed & Altered No Fee No Fee Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Altered $82 $85
25 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
Impound Fee (Initial Impound) Unaltered $82 $85
Impound Fee (2nd & Subsequent) Unaltered $164 $171
Boarding Fee, per day PG Kennels $39 $41
Boarding Fee, transported to SPCA $165 $172

ALARM REGISTRATION & RESPONSE
01-4429 Alarm Registration $35 $36
Alarm Renewal (within 30 Days of Alarm Permit Expiration Date) $5 $5 01-4504 False Alarm - First Response - Unpermitted Alarm $137 $143 False Alarm - First Response No Fee No Fee
False Alarm - Second Response $59 $61
False Alarm - Third Response $164 $171
False Alarm - Fourth Response $272 $283
False Alarm - Fifth and Subsequent Response $381 $397
Duress/Panic/Robbery Alarm Violation $327 $341
Late Fee (if not paid within 30 days) $26 $27
01-4502 ADMINISTRATIVE AND MISCELLANEOUS
Accident Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $10 $10 Booking Fee $29 $30
Clearance Letter – No Record on File $34 $35
Clearance Letter – Record on File $44 $46
Crime Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $11 $11 Information Report, Compilation and Copying (per report) $5 $5 Evidence Video Reproduction $41 $43
Fingerprint Processing (Live Scan administration) $29 $30 Removal of Traffic Boot $129 $134
Repossession Receipt $15 $16
Sign-off of tickets by other agencies $16 $17
Vehicle Release Fee $218 $227
01-4205 PARKING PERMITS & FEES
Contractor’s Parking Permit, Monthly $40 $42
Parking Meter Rate per Hour $2 $2
Public Parking Lot Permit Processing, Delinquency Penalty $26 $27 Public Parking Lot Permit, Annual $370 $386
Public Parking Lot Permit, 12-Month, TRANSFERABLE $471 $491 Public Parking Lot Permit, Monthly $40 $42
26 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # POLICE F/Y 21-22
Fees
Proposed
F/Y 22-23
Fees
Residential Parking Permit Processing, per permit, Annual $11 $11 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit Program - Initial Residential Registration
$24 $25
Temporary Overnight Parking - 72 Hour Resident Permit $4 $4 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Weekly - Exemption $91 $95 Temporary Overnight Parking Permit - Annual - Exemption $381 $397 Timed Space - Daily $5 $5
01-4421
Police Commander Hourly Rate $202 $210
Police Sergeant Hourly Rate $193 $201
Police Officer Hourly Rate $170 $177
Police Services, Animal Control & Parking Enforcement Community Service Officer Hourly Rate
$143 $149
Patrol Vehicle Hourly Rate $59 $61
01-4201 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS & DEPOSITS
Amplified Sound Permit $82 $85
Drone Permit Fee - Daily $21 $22
Drone Permit Fee - Annual $80 $83
Firearms Storage: Administrative Release Fee $408 $425
Garage Sale Permit Processing $10 $10
Massage Permit $24 $25
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit $54 $56
Refuse Container or Storage Container Permit Renewal/Extension $28 $29 Transportation of Large Structure deposit – variable fee based on size/type of structure - unused portion to be reimbursed
$205 $214
Transportation of Large Structure permit – per structure $584 $609 POLICE RESPONSE - DUI, Peace Disturbance, Social Hosting, & Special Events 27 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # PUBLIC WORKS FEES F/Y 21-22 Fees Proposed F/Y
22-23 Fees
01-4445 MISCELLANEOUS FEES
New fee
method &
language
change
Requested Special Traffic Marking Review (Personnel time to be charged based on time and hourly rate) $124
Charged at
hourly rate per
contract
Banner Installation and Removal (Downtown Street Lights) per pole
$43 $45
Memorial Bench (1) Fee represents labor costs associated with installing the bench. Materials for bench are charged at the additional actual cost.
$410 $427
Memorial Bench maintenance (5 years) $530 $552
Memorial Tree Fee represents labor costs associated with the planting the tree. Tree to be charged at cost. This cost will be in addition to the labor fee.
$957 $997
Tree Permit violation (minimum $200 or cost of tree replacement or $1,000)
Min. $200 Min. $208
Annual Solid Waste Exemption Application $88 $92
Trash receptacle left on sidewalk/street Violation PGMC 9.16.030 $84 $88 Tree Appeal $216 $225
Newsrack Annual Application Fee $56 $58
Newsrack Program Fee Half Rack $36 $38
Newsrack Program Fee Full Rack $77 $80
01-4445 Equipment Use Charges
(when responding to emergencies on private property)
Current FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/136901 (Personnel to be charged based on time and hourly rate) Standard size barricade, each per day ($100 deposit
required)
$3 $3
Four-foot delineator, each per day ($100 deposit
required)
$4 $4
Eight-foot barricade, each per day ($100 deposit
required)
$11 $11
18-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit
required)
$3 $3
24-inch traffic cone, each per day ($100 deposit
required)
$3 $3
Temporary Directional Signage Per Day $3 $3
Temporary Parking Signage Per Day $2 $2
(1) The Memorial Bench is charged at the listed fee, plus the actual cost of the bench. 28 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 21-22
Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 21-22 NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY 22-
23 Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 22-23 NonResident /
Commercial
01-4467 PRE-SCHOOL (MONTHLY FEES)
2 Days Per Week $180 $199 $188 $207
3 Days Per Week $284 $315 $296 $328
5 Days Per Week $463 $514 $482 $536
01-4462 YOUTH SPORTS $90 $99 $94 $103
01-4463 PROGRAMS
Full Day Youth Camp (5 day week) $180 $199 $188 $207
Full Day Youth Camp (4 day week) $144 $160 $150 $167
Full Day Youth Camp (3 day week) $107 $119 $111 $124
Daily Drop-In (per Day) $41 $45 $43 $47
01-4462 YOUTH CENTER PROGRAM
Membership (per Semester) provides free daily admission & discount at
$73 $73 $76 $76
Membership (for the School Year) provides free daily
admission & discount
$123 $123 $128 $128
Daily Admission $2 $2 $2 $2
Dance Admission $10 $10 $10 $10
01-4467 SWIMMING (during the Summer Season)
Progressive Swim Lessons, 8 class sessions, per child $75 $84 $78 $88 Private Swim Lessons, per class, per child per 20 minute lesson $35 $39 $36 $41 Semi-private Swim Lessons, per class, per child (2 students required) per 20
minute lesson Group Swim Lessons
$19 $21 $20 $22
Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (After Lessons - 2:30 - 4:30) Monday-Thursday
$3 $3 $3 $3
Recreational Swimming: Lovers Point, (during full-day
offering noon - 4:30) mostly Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Holidays
$5 $6 $5 $6
Family Card (50 Lovers Point Swims Monday-Thursday, or 25 Lovers Point Swims on Fri, Sat, Sun & Holidays) $82 $91 $85 $95 Private use of swimming pool (rental fee per hour) Subject to Rental $103 $173 $107 $180
01-4462 OTHER PROGRAMS, CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS
Contractual Agreements for Recreational Programs in Facilities and Parks
Contract Contract Contract Contract
Adult Contract Recreation Programs Contract Contract Contract Contract Youth Special Trips/Excursions (85% of cost) Contract Contract Contract Contract The City Manager or his designee may reduce Recreation fees based on unanticipated reductions in activity days/hours. 29 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 21-21
Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 21-22 NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY 22-
23 Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 22-23 NonResident /
Commercial
01-4670 FACILITY RENTAL
Picnic Facility Reservation Permit: Caledonia, George
Washington, Arnett Park, and similar Picnic Facilities
1 – 50 persons 37 63 39 66
51 + persons 90 156 94 163
Court Reservation Fees: Volleyball, Basketball, Tennis and Pickleball $20 $37 $21 $39
Parks/Facilities Reservable (under Contract) w/ Liability Insurance Contract Contract Contract Contract
Community Center, Lebeck Room (2 hr. minimum rental) $107 $188 $111 $196 Community Center, Lebeck Room – Security Deposit $510 $510 $531 $531 Community Center, Kuwatani/Scout Room per hr. (Minimum
of 2 hours) $36 $62 $38 $65
Chautauqua Hall Facility 2 hr. minimum rental) $410 $718 $427 $748 Chautauqua Hall Facility – Security Deposit $510 $510 $531 $531 Youth Center (2 hr. minimum rental) $107 $188 $111 $196 Youth Center Meeting Room $36 $62 $38 $65
Little House at Jewell Park $17 $32 $18 $33
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for 1 – 100 Persons (Special Events or Special Use)
$167 + $188
Damage Deposit
$291 + $188
Damage Deposit
$174 + $196
Damage Deposit
$303 + $196
Damage Deposit
Lovers Point Park – Per Hour Fee for Over 100 Persons
(Special Events or Special Use) $349 $349 $364 $364
Lovers Point Wedding or Staging Area; Berwick Park, Jewell Park, Pt. Pinos Lighthouse and Elmarie Dyke Gazebo
reservation fee per hour. (Minimum 2 hours Min.)
$172 + $189
Damage Deposit
$320 + $188
Damage Deposit
$179 + $197
Damage Deposit
$333 + $196
Damage Deposit
Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for 1 – 100 Persons $174 $174 $181 $181 Recreation Trail Rental Fee Per Hour for over 100 Persons $349 $349 $364 $364 Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Pacific Grove Recreation Department and non- profit recreation organizations are not subject to facility rental fees. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. 30 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # RECREATION
FY 21-22
Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 21-22 NonResident /
Commercial
Proposed FY 22-
23 Resident/ NonProfit
F/Y 22-23 NonResident /
Commercial
01-4670 MUNICIPAL SOFTBALL PARK RENTAL POLICY
Daily Use $205 $358 $214 $373
Field Use, Per Hour $30 $51 $31 $53
Lights per hr. $26 $26 $27 $27
Staff, Per hour Fully burdened
rate
Fully burdened
rate
Fully burdened
rate
Fully burdened
rate
Restrooms (Previously charged under other Class rates) No charge No charge No charge No charge Deposit on daily rate (same as prior Class II, Class III, Class IV)
$171 $171 $178 $178
01-4462 MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION FEES & CHARGES
Transfer Fee (transfers between classes and/or sessions) $5 $5 $5 $5 Refund Processing Fee (if within written time frame) 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund 25% of refund

SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Application fee per event – Minimal Impact Events $24 $24 $25 $25 Application fee – Events with 1 – 999 participants $210 $210 $219 $219 Application fee – Events with more than 1,000 participants $768 $768 $800 $800 01-4462
All private parties, wedding receptions, anniversaries, and events with or without alcohol or admissions fees Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Cost + 10% Programs, activities, or events that are co-sponsored by the Recreation Department and a civic, community, or local organization are not charged Softball Park Rental rates. The City also does not charge facility rental fees for official City of Pacific Grove activities and those of any other public agency that has a reciprocal use arrangement with the City. Fees for direct costs, such as staffing and utilities are charged to these entities.

SPECIAL EVENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS (Note: This is a pass through of rates charged to the City by insurance carrier, so fees will change as premium rates change) Note: If insurance is provided by the event holder, the City requires $2,000,000 coverage per event and the City must be named as Additional Insured under the policy.

HOLIDAYS
Rental facilities will not be available on the following days: New Year’s Eve, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day and the day following, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.

RESERVATIONS
31 PGCC 4-20-22

3. All senior citizen nutrition programs serving Pacific Grove residents are exempt from rental fees and charges.

4. To the fullest extent permitted by law, all renters shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees, both severally and collectively 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), howsoever the same may be caused, except in cases of City’s sole negligence, resulting directly or indirectly from or arising out the negligence or willful misconduct of the renter, its employees, agents, subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable with respect to the performance of this Agreement and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the same shall include: (1) bodily injury, (2) death to any person or persons or, (3) injury to or destruction of tangible and/or property including that of the City, whether direct or consequential including the loss of use resulting therefrom. Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or otherwise reduce any other right or obligation of indemnity, which would otherwise exist as to any party or person described herein. The City, at its sole option, may choose to provide all or a portion of the defense of claims, damages, losses, liability, costs, and expenses as set forth above, and in such event, the renter shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from the costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, of such defense.”

5. Official Pacific Grove youth groups, under 18 years of age, will be allowed to use City facilities as Class I (no charge), scheduled at a time when a supervisor is on duty, with the approval of the City Manager, for activities on a space available basis. Examples of qualified users would be the PONY Baseball League, Pop Warner league, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts and Brownies.

6. If the person or organization imposes a cover charge, sells alcoholic beverages, or otherwise comes under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the City must be provided with evidence of a valid license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

2. All renters of City facilities shall complete a rental application and have it on file with the Recreation Department. City facilities may not be sublet without the express authorization of City.

No verbal reservations will be accepted. Facility is not reserved until all fees have been paid and a contract has been executed. All reservations will be made on a first-come, firstserved basis at a maximum of six months and a minimum of 10 working days prior to use.

Cancellations result in loss of deposit and insurance fees. No refunds if cancelled within 10 business days of event. Park fees allow for a two-hour time block; deposit refund to be made within thirty days following event if City determines no damage resulted from usage.

RENTAL POLICIES

1. The City may require appropriate deposits or extra payments for special charges incurred. 32 PGCC 4-20-22

ACCT. # SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND CONNECTION FEES F/Y 21-22 Fees
Proposed F/Y
22-23
Fees
76-4471 Sewer Service Charge
6 Year Sewer
Rate Chart
Attached
6 Year Sewer
Rate Chart
Attached
76-4470 Sewer Connection Fee
85% of fee
charged by
M1W
85% of fee
charged by
M1W
33 PGCC 4-20-22

Description Units 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021 7/1/2022 7/1/2023 7/1/2024 Business/Gov't Location/Each Business $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Residential-Vacant Each Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Residential Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/Apartments Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Residential/Apartments- Each Living Unit $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Condominium Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Condo/Retirement Each Living Unit $61.20 $62.82 $64.46 $66.14 $67.88 $69.66 Minimum/Vacancy Location/Each Business $20.40 $20.94 $21.49 $22.05 $22.63 $23.22 Motel/Hotel Each Room $26.56 $27.26 $27.96 $28.70 $29.46 $30.22 Bed & Breakfast Inn Each Room $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 Supermarkets Location $258.14 $264.90 $271.84 $278.98 $286.28 $293.78 Medical Office Each Licensed Physician $63.16 $64.82 $66.52 $68.26 $70.06 $71.88 Dental Office Each Licensed Dentist $87.10 $89.38 $91.72 $94.14 $96.60 $99.12 Rest Home/Convalescent Capacity $17.50 $17.96 $18.42 $18.92 $19.40 $19.92 General Hospital Capacity $103.64 $106.34 $109.14 $112.00 $114.92 $117.94 Animal Hospital Business $115.32 $118.34 $121.44 $124.62 $127.90 $131.24 Restaurant 1 meal/day Each Restaurant Seat $2.26 $2.32 $2.38 $2.44 $2.50 $2.56 Restaurant 2 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $3.54 $3.64 $3.72 $3.82 $3.92 $4.04 Restaurant 3 meals/day Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Restaurant with Bar Each Restaurant Seat $6.78 $6.96 $7.14 $7.34 $7.52 $7.72 Bar Location/Each Business $102.66 $105.34 $108.10 $110.94 $113.84 $116.82 Nightclub Location/Each Business $307.68 $315.74 $324.00 $332.50 $341.20 $350.14 Takeout Food - Small Location/Each Business $114.66 $117.66 $120.74 $123.90 $127.14 $130.48 Takeout Food - Medium Location/Each Business $282.08 $289.48 $297.06 $304.84 $312.82 $321.02 Takeout Food - Large Location/Each Business $514.34 $527.82 $541.64 $555.84 $570.40 $585.34 Bakery Location/Each Business $92.98 $95.42 $97.92 $100.48 $103.12 $105.82 Theater Per Screen @ Each $152.54 $156.54 $160.64 $164.86 $169.18 $173.60 Bowling Center Location/Each Business $464.14 $476.30 $488.78 $501.58 $514.74 $528.22 Gym Per 500 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Mortuary Location/Each Business $125.36 $128.64 $132.02 $135.48 $139.02 $142.68 School (Minimum) Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 School (Grades 0-6) Student Population $0.66 $0.68 $0.70 $0.72 $0.74 $0.76 School (7-College) Student Population $1.28 $1.30 $1.34 $1.38 $1.42 $1.46 Boarding School Student Population $12.96 $13.30 $13.66 $14.02 $14.38 $14.76 Instructional Facility Student Population $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Church Per 100 members $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Photo / Laboratory / Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Service Station/Garage Location/Each Business $45.36 $46.54 $47.76 $49.02 $50.30 $51.62 Paint and Body Shops Per 10 employees $47.26 $48.48 $49.76 $51.06 $52.40 $53.78 Dry Cleaner Location/Each Business $156.46 $160.56 $164.76 $169.08 $173.52 $178.06 Laundromat Each Washing Machine $41.12 $42.20 $43.32 $44.44 $45.62 $46.80 Special User [2] Individual Determination NA NA NA NA NA NA Sewer Rate Bimonthly City of Pacific Grove Portion ONLY (effective dates) 34 PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CITY COUNCIL POLICY
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page No.

Fees, Charges, and Cost Recovery 400-4 June 15, 2011 1 of 2 I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the policy is to guide the City Council’s establishment of fees for service, fines, and other charges for service, in order to help ensure consistency in fee setting rationale. The policy is intended to provide broad guidance for service areas, without providing detailed guidance for all fee categories
It is the City Council’s intent that the policy may be amended over time to address additional services and evolving economic circumstances.

II. POLICY OF THE CITY
The City establishes fees according to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Chapter 6.02. Pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, it is the intent of the City Council to recover a portion or all costs reasonably borne for providing government services to the extent such cost recovery reflects the appropriate balance of general revenue support and fees paid by the individual(s) benefiting from the service.

For enterprise services, in which the City is offering products or services for which the customer has broad market choices, the City may choose to set rates based on current market conditions.

This includes facility rentals, cemetery sales, recreational programs, land use, or similar enterprises. This market-based approach provides the City with the ability to optimize revenue beyond recovering the cost of providing the service. These market-based rates accurately reflect the value received by the customer.

In setting fees, City staff shall prepare fees for City Council consideration, based on cost recovery levels in the subsequent table. The listed percentage or methodology represents the combined cost recovery level for the department. Individual fees within each department may be established at a lower rate to encourage a desired performance; however the overall departmental fees should be within the listed ranges.

All staff assigned to hourly-based services, such as special events, inspections, or related tasks will be charged at the fully burdened hourly rate.

PGCC 4-20-22

Pacific Grove City Council Policy No. 400-4 Page 2 of 2 Service Cost Recovery Method
Administration, City Clerk, Libraries At least 30% of costs Consideration may need to be given to the recovery percentage, such as limitations on certain fees imposed by the State, election code; or similar entities.

Community Development 80-100% of costs
Public Works 80-100% of costs
Public Safety 30-50% of costs
Hyperbaric Chamber 80-100% of costs
City Facility Rental
Private parties Market
Non-profit organizations Market
Ongoing, frequent, or unique rental
(e.g., weekly classes, or street closure)
Discount from Market
City–sponsored events No charge
Special Events
For-profit sponsor Market; however at least 100% costs
Non-profit sponsor 100% of costs
Events designated “traditional” by City Council No charge Recreation Market; however at least 30% of costs
Cemetery Market; however at least 80% of costs
Golf Determined through concessionaire
Adopted June 2, 2010 (Resolution No. 10-044)
Adopted June 15, 2011 (Resolution No. 11-052)
Adopted September 19, 2018 (Resolution No. 18-033)
PGCC 4-20-22

RESOLUTION NO. 22-xxx

ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

FINDINGS

1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 6.02 provides for the establishment of fees and charges for service, and;

2. The City of Pacific Grove held a public hearing on April 20, 2022 regarding changes to the Master Fee Schedule, and;

3. Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on April 20, 2022 was published in accordance with PGMC Chapter 6.02 and relevant California Government Code sections, and;

4. The City Council desires to adopt an amended Master Fee Schedule for FY 2022-23, and;

5. The Action proposed by this Resolution does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guideline section 15378.

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

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

2. After receiving a report of the proposed changes in fees, charges, and costs contained in the City of Pacific Grove FY 2022-23 Master Fee Schedule, and having held a public hearing on the changes, the City Council hereby authorizes the changes including any changes as directed by Council.

3. Per Government Code 66017, approved changes that relate to community development services shall be effective 60 days following final action by the City Council on the resolution. In the case of reductions, the reductions can be implemented on July 1, 2022, on a case-by-case basis, by decision of the City Manager.

4. Approved changes shall be effective July 1, 2022.

5. Every City Department is requested to reproduce, display, and distribute copies of their fee schedules as deemed appropriate. The Master Fee Schedule shall also be posted on the City’s website and available at the Library.

PGCC 4-20-22

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 20th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
____________________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PGCC 4-20-22

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: Alyson Hunter, AICP, Director
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting an Application for Coastal Commission Grant Funding Relating to Coastal Hazards LCP Amendment At the 4/6/22 meeting this item was pulled and then continued due to time constraints. Action required by 4/20/2022.

CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15265, Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution supporting an application for Coastal Commission Grant Funding to update the Coastal Hazards Section of the Local Coastal Program (LCP)

DISCUSSION
As staff processes Coastal Development Permits (CDPs) and becomes more familiar with the details of the policies and standards in the LCP, it will be necessary to undertake minor amendments to the Implementation Plan (IP) and Land Use Plan (LUP) based on new information, updated science, or other discovered inconsistencies, like we found with the ATC project. This has come up with several recent CDP applications relating to significant remodels to homes along Ocean View Blvd. and the requirement in PGMC Section 23.90.140 to prepare a costly Coastal Hazards Report based on mapping that was prepared using methodology from the mid-2000s. We have required the preparation of these reports for three (3) projects all of which have resulted in "no impact". As we have learned, coastal hazards planning has evolved over the years and the data collection and analysis has become much more fine-tuned. Staff would like to undertake an amendment to 23.90.140 as well as to Section 2.1 - Coastal Hazards of the LUP consisting of, generally, updating the map (Fig. 3) and aligning the standards.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) releases grant programs to assist local governments with the preparation of and updates to their Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) for the purposes stated above, among others. The attached Resolution will authorize staff to prepare an application for a $100,000.00 grant (the maximum allowed) which will cover the cost to hire a qualified professional to update the background data based on current science. This grant will not cover the cost for staff to update the mapping and minor text amendments needed in the IP and LUP and carry the amendments through the Planning Commission and Council and, ultimately, the Coastal Commission for certification. Although there is no deadline for this round of rolling, non-competitive grants, City staff has already talked to program staff at the Coastal Commission who, in addition to supporting the basis for the application, noted that the sooner the complete application can be submitted, the better.

PGCC 4-20-22

OPTIONS
The Council could direct staff not to apply for this grant funding.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no cost to the City to apply for the grant. If awarded, the grant would cover the cost of obtaining the new data, but not the staff work needed to prepare the amendment.

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

Attachments
Draft Resolution
PGCC 4-20-22

1 RESOLUTION 22-___

AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION’S LCP LOCAL ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Budget Act of 2021 provides up to $31 million to support the Coastal Commission’s LCP Local Assistance Grant Program which awards grants to local governments to support coastal resiliency and updates to Local Coastal Programs (LCPs); and WHEREAS, the California Coastal Commission, under the authority of the California Coastal Act, may provide financial assistance to support coastal planning and has approved a grant program to provide such financial assistance for LCP planning; and WHEREAS, the goal of the grant program is to develop new or updated LCPs in conformance with the California Coastal Act and to promote coastal resiliency and address the effects of climate change; and
WHEREAS, grant proposals submitted under this grant program must complete Local Coastal Program (LCP) planning work with special emphasis on coastal resiliency and addressing the effects of climate change and sea-level rise; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove, has an effectively certified LCP; and WHEREAS, through the practical application of the standards of the Implementation Plan (IP) pertaining to Coastal Hazards, staff has discovered that the coastal hazards science that these measures were based on in the development of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) have become outdated and are onerous to individual property owners seeking to make improvements to properties along the coast; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove, desires to pursue the services of a professional geomorphologist or equivalent to update the background information and data needed to prepare an amendment to Section 23.90.140 (Coastal Hazards) of the Implementation Plan (IP) and Chapter 2.1 (Coastal Hazards) of the Land Use Plan (LUP), as needed, for approval by the City and submittal for certification by the California Coastal Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove commits to and agrees to fully support a planning effort intended to amend a certified LCP pursuant to the provisions of the California Coastal Act, with full public participation and coordination with the Coastal Commission staff; and WHEREAS, enactment of this Ordinance qualifies for a CEQA Statutory Exemption as provided by section 15265 of the CEQA Guidelines – Adoption of Coastal Plans and Programs.

The City Council finds no evidence of unusual circumstances has been submitted within the context, or evidence the project will cause significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource as contemplated by CEQA Guidelines 15300.2.

PGCC 4-20-22

2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove, hereby:

1. Directs the Community Development Department Director, or designee, to submit the grant application package attached hereto as Attachment 1 to the California Coastal Commission to provide financial and planning assistance, under authority of the California Coastal Act, in the amount of $100,000.00 to fund the project more particularly described in the grant application package.

2. Authorizes the City Manager of the City of Pacific Grove, to execute, in the name of the City of Pacific Grove, all necessary applications, contracts and agreements and amendments thereto to implement and carry out the grant application package attached hereto and any project approved through approval of the grant application.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE on this ____ day of _______________, 2022 on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Purchasing Authorization This item was continued from the 4/6/22 meeting.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve in concept an ordinance amending PGMC 2.16.

DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION
On January 19, 2022, Council discussed expenditures for Council approved legal services that did not have stated expenditure limits. This agenda report is a follow-up to that discussion.

Purchasing presents a number of ethical and legal hazards for local officials. This is because missteps can undermine the public’s confidence in the agency’s financial practices. What may appear to be minor code violations, i.e. noncompliance, can be interpreted as disregard of purchasing regulations.

Mayors and Councilmembers have a fiduciary role. Council should: Establish purchasing ordinance/policy, direct administrative staff to carry out the process, and approve final agreements.

Ultimate responsibility for all City expenditures, including purchases, rests with Council.

REGULATIONS – AUTHORIZATION
City purchasing regulatory framework is provided in City Charter Article 40. Paragraph (b) states: The Council by ordinance shall adopt policies and procedures, including appropriate bidding regulations, governing purchases of or contracts for supplies, materials and equipment. Purchases of supplies, materials and equipment shall be made only in accordance with the adopted policies and procedures.

Authorization for the purchase of services is also addressed in PGMC 2.16 Purchasing System and Procedures.

PGMC 2.16.020 states all purchases of and contracts for supplies, services, materials, equipment, and public works by the city, or by an officer or employee thereof, shall be made only in accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

The City Manager is the city’s purchasing agent and has responsibility for the procedure and forms to PGCC 4-20-22

carry out such duty in accordance with the municipal code. PGMC 2.16.160 states purchases of supplies, services, materials, equipment, and contractual services, including public works, having an estimated market value under $40,000 (for the period beginning July 1, 2020) may be made by the purchasing agent in the open market.

PGMC 2.16.220 states purchases and contracts for supplies, services, and equipment of estimated market value greater than the maximum amount for which the purchasing agent is authorized, shall be by written contract, approved by the council by resolution.

PRACTICE
I assume that most City purchases are processed in a manner consistent with PGMC 2.16. However, three recent purchases were not in compliance with the municipal code:

September 15, 2021, staff reported on the archeological monitoring agreement with Patricia Paramoure Archeological Consulting for the ASBS Capture and Diversion Project and the Sewer Collection System Master Plan Project. Table 2 stated ASBS total costs incurred exceeded amended contract total by $42,836.38 and SCSMP total costs incurred exceeded amended contract total by $9,377.65. Staff recommended authorization of a second amendment to increase the total project budgets by the existing delta to reflect the total costs of archeological monitoring incurred. Council approved.

Council authorized the City Manager and City Attorney to proceed with litigation against the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), and to contract with Michael Colantuono for litigation services in closed session on February 24, 2021. Council’s approval for hiring Michael Colantuono did not include an expenditure limit. Michael Colantuono was paid $106,797.99 for CDTFA transactions and use tax litigation. This amount exceeds $40,000 which is the City Manager’s expenditure authority.

In closed session on August 18, 2021, Council approved the addition of Elizabeth Hull, Best Best & Krieger to the negotiating team for the vacation of Sloat Ave. and Ocean View Blvd easement.

Council’s approval for hiring Elizabeth Hull did not include an expenditure limit. On January 19, 2022, Sloat Ave. negotiations were ongoing, and invoices received exceeded the City Manager’s expenditure authority of $40,000. On January 19 Council approved an $80,000 expenditure limit for Elizabeth Hull.

These violations are sufficient reason to warrant a Council review and improvements to the purchasing system and procedure to prevent future noncompliance.Root causes of noncompliance may include:

1. Failure to explicitly state the purchase limit.

Improper assumptions:
a. Purchase limit for Council authorized purchases is available funds. b. Purchase regulations can be ignored if there are perceived savings. c. Retroactive purchase authorization is acceptable.
d. Purchase regulations do not apply in Council closed session.

2. 3. Unclear purchasing responsibilities or knowledge of purchasing system and procedures.

The manner in which Council purchase approvals have been obtained has been inconsistent. In practice approvals have taken the form of a simple motion, a recommendation with a report, a written contract, or a resolution. PGMC 2.16.220 specifies a written contract and resolution. Clarity of the form for Council approval could reduce uncertainty and improve efficiency.

There is no legal difference between a Council motion and a resolution.A resolution is not required to direct the City Manager to take a certain action, or to enter into a contract. However, a resolution PGCC 4-20-22

requires additional steps for implementation and tracking.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Improved contractor cost tracking should be implemented to prevent unauthorized expenditures. That would allow Council’s timely approval when costs are trending toward exceeding the City Manager’s purchasing authority.

Additional improvements can be made in our purchasing regulations. I recommend amending the municipal code as follows (insert BOLD delete strikethrough):

1. Amend 2.05.010
(a)Pursuant to Article 11 of the city charter the mayor shall sign, facsimile or actual, in the name and on behalf of the city, all contracts, deeds, bonds and other legal instruments in which the city is a party. This section does not transfer operational authority to the mayor.
(b) Mayor shall not sign any purchase contract, deed, bond or other legal instrument unless in accordance with Council approval.

2. Amend 2.16.160
(b) The purchase authority limit set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be adjusted by Council ordinance on July 1st of each fifth fiscal year, starting on July 1, 2020. The adjustment shall cause an increase or decrease to the purchase limit based upon the cumulative change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) that occurred since the last adjustment, based upon the “CPI, All Urban Consumers, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area; base years 1982-1984 = 100,” as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or any comparable replacement or successor index. For ease of administration, the purchase authority limit set for each following five-year period shall be adjusted by rounding to the nearest $5,000. (e) Council approval of purchases and contracts for supplies, services and equipment without a purchase limit shall not exceed the city’s purchasing agent authority limit set forth in Article II of this chapter.

3. Amend 2.16.220
(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, purchases and contracts for supplies, services and equipment of estimated market value greater than the maximum amount for which the purchasing agent is authorized, as specified in Article II of this chapter, shall be by written contract, approved by the council by resolution,. Council shall approve with the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to the procedure prescribed in this article except when such procedures may be dispensed with as defined in Article I of this chapter. (The procedures prescribed in Article IV of this chapter shall be observed in the case of all public works projects, as defined in Article IV of this chapter, involving expenditures greater than the maximum amount for which the purchasing agent is authorized, as specified in Article II of this chapter.) (b) Council approval of a purchase in closed session shall be as prescribed in this article.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: 4. Transparency, Accountability and Communication and 5. Financial Stability
REFERENCES:

Institute for Local Government, "Financial Management for Elected Officials: Questions to Ask’ January 2013, page 19
PGCC 4-20-22

CalCities, ‘Financial Responsibilities and City Revenues for Mayors and Council Members’, January 21, 2022, slide 6

OPTIONS
Provide alternatives
Do nothing
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: See Goal Alignment within Discussion section.

PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda No. 12 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chaps Poduri, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Cannabis Tax Measure and Cannabis Advisory Measure CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare two measures for the November 2022 general election for purposes of sales of recreational and medicinal cannabis:

An advisory measure assessing support for the amendment of the PGMC to allow not more than 2 (two) cannabis retail storefronts; and
a.

An implementing measure to impose a general tax on sale or delivery of cannabis and cannabis products, including hemp, to not exceed 6% of gross sales. b.

1. Direct the City Manager to enter into a six-month contract with HdL not to exceed $15,000 for subject matter expertise and consulting work related to these measures.

2. DISCUSSION
The following observations were captured through research and via fact investigations:

Monterey region’s cannabis sales are primarily driven by tourists.

Cannabis retail storefronts in Marina, Seaside and Carmel are capturing peninsula sales.

Two retail storefronts in Pacific Grove would allow the capture of tourist sales coming in from Monterey and Pebble Beach. Ideal locations would be at the edge of the town one bordering Monterey and one bordering Pebble Beach.

With the passage of AB45, hemp products are now taxable. This should be accounted for in terms of measures / ordinances.

The 6% tax cap enables future variations in the tax rate to be imposed.

Draft measures are attached with this report for reference. Council action is not needed on the draft measures until HdL completes its review.

Next steps:

Following contract execution, HdL will review and finalize the language for the measures and the associated ordinance.

OPTIONS
Take no action.

PGCC 4-20-22

Take no action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

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

Attachments
Draft Ordinance
Measures
PGCC 4-20-22

ORDINANCE NO. 22-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
ADDING CHAPTER 6.13 “CANNABIS TAX” TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO

AUTHORIZE COLLECTION OF A GENERAL BUSINESS TAX ON THE SALE

OR DELIVERY OF CANNABIS AND CANNABIS RELATED PRODUCTS
Findings

1. Proposition 64 of 2016, approved by California voters in November 2016, legalized adult recreational use of cannabis.

2. Pacific Grove does not presently allow sale of cannabis within the City, but cannabis deliveries presently occur and changes to law may allow the future sale of cannabis within the City.

3. This Ordinance is intended to amend PGMC Title 6 to authorize collection of a general tax on the sale or delivery of cannabis, and cannabis related products, within the City of Pacific Grove.

4. This Ordinance is adopted to achieve the following purposes, among others, and shall be interpreted to accomplish those purposes: To collect a local business tax on the acts of providing, donating, selling, or distributing any cannabis or cannabis products in the City.

5. This Ordinance does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment). (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(a)(3)). Further, the Ordinance involves approval of government revenues to fund existing services (Pub. Resources Code § 21080 (b)(8); CEQA Guidelines § 15273(a)(4)). It does not make any commercial activity lawful nor commit the City to fund a particular activity.

6. This Ordinance is exempt from the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the enactment of this Ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378, 15061).

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

Section 1. Findings.

The Findings set forth above are an integral part of this Ordinance and are adopted as if set forth in their entirety.

Section 2. PGMC Chapter 6.13
PGCC 4-20-22

A. Chapter 6.13 “Cannabis Business Tax” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code.

B. This chapter shall be known as the “Cannabis Business Tax Ordinance.” C. This chapter is enacted solely to raise revenue for the general governmental purposes of the City and not for purposes of regulation or of raising revenues for regulatory purposes.

All proceeds from the tax imposed by this chapter shall be placed in the City’s general fund and used for the usual current expenses of the City.

Section 3. PGMC Section 6.13.010
Section 6.13.010 “Local Cannabis Business Tax” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

A. The City of Pacific Grove shall impose the Local Cannabis Business Tax on every person engaged in cannabis business, cannabis sales or cannabis transport in the City of Pacific Grove. The Local Cannabis Business Tax shall be imposed on the gross receipts for any retail sale or delivery of Cannabis, Cannabis accessories, Cannabis Edible products, Medicinal cannabis or Cannabis-related products, as those terms are defined in this Chapter, including deliveries originating within or outside the City. The tax rate shall not exceed 6% of gross sales. As an exception, the cannabis business tax rate may be imposed at a lesser amount as the City Council may from time to time authorize. This tax shall be collected monthly, and shall paid in arrears related to sales and/or deliveries made in the prior month.

B. The Local Cannabis Business Tax imposed by this Chapter shall be imposed and collected on a monthly basis and shall be due and payable in monthly installments.

C. Persons required to pay the Local Cannabis Business Tax for transacting and carrying on any business under this chapter shall not be relieved from the payment of any license fee for the privilege of doing such business required under any other ordinance of the City and shall remain subject to the regulatory provisions of other ordinances.

D. The City shall not be required to send a delinquency or other notice or bill to any person subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Failure to send such notice or bill shall not affect the validity of any tax or penalty due under the provisions of this Chapter.

Section 4. PGMC Section 6.13.020
Section 6.13.020 “Purpose” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

This Chapter is enacted to achieve the following purposes, among others, and all its provisions are to be interpreted to accomplish those purposes:

A. To impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, manufacturing, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing cannabis and/or cannabis products and accessories by commercial cannabis businesses in the City, in accord PGCC 4-20-22

with the state Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, as it may be amended.

B. To impose a tax on lawful commercial cannabis business in accordance with the authority granted by California Revenue and Taxation Code section 7284 to impose a business license tax, as it may be amended.

C. To specify the type of tax and rate of tax to be levied and the method of collection; and D. To comply with all requirements for imposition of a general tax, such tax to become operative only if submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue.

Section 5. PGMC Section 6.13.030
Section 6.13.030 “Definitions” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

A. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings:
"Business" shall include all activities engaged in or caused to be engaged in within the unincorporated area of the County, including any commercial or industrial enterprise, trade, profession, occupation, vocation, calling, or livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit, but shall not include the services rendered by an employee to his or her employer. “Cannabis” shall be defined pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 26001, all to include but not be limited to any part of the plants known as Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, as defined under the California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act at Business and Professions Code section 19300.5, as may be amended, or by Health and Safety Code Section 11018.5, and by other state law. “Cannabis” or “marijuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, or any other strain or varietal of the genus Cannabis that may exist or hereafter be discovered or developed that has psychoactive or medicinal properties, whether growing or not, including the seeds of such plants. “Cannabis” does not mean “industrial hemp” as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 11018.5. “Cannabis accessory” is any device intended to aid in the use of Cannabis or Cannabis products that does not itself consist of all or part of Cannabis products, or as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 26001..
"Cannabis business" or "medical marijuana business" means business activity directly involved with, related to, or concerning cannabis, including, but not limited to, cultivating, dispensing, transporting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, processing, preparing, storing, packaging, or conducting wholesale and/or retail sales of cannabis and any ancillary products in the City of Pacific Grove, whether or not carried on for gain or profit. "Cannabis business tax," "business tax," or "commercial cannabis tax" means the tax due pursuant to this Chapter for engaging in commercial or retail cannabis business in the City.

PGCC 4-20-22

“Cannabis product” also known as “Marijuana products” means any product containing Cannabis or its derivatives, including, but not limited to, flowers, buds, oils, tinctures, concentrates, extractions, edibles, sweetened cannabis beverage, Cannabis accessory or products described in Health and Safety Code Section 11018.1. “Cannabis-related product” shall be defined to include all “Cannabis”, “Cannabis accessories”, “Cannabis products”, “Edible Cannabis products”, “Medicinal Cannabis” and or “Medicinal Cannabis products” as those terms are defined in this Section. “Delivery” shall be defined pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 26001. "Distribute" or "distribution" means a person or facility involved in the procurement, sale, and/or transport of cannabis and cannabis products between permitted or licensed entities. “Edible Cannabis product” shall be defined pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 26001.
"Engaged in business" means the commencing, conducting, operating, managing or carrying on of a cannabis business and the exercise of corporate or franchise powers, whether done as owner, or by means of an officer, agent, manager, employee, or otherwise, whether operating from a fixed location in the City County or coming into the City from an outside location to engage in such activities.
"Evidence of doing business" means evidence such as, without limitation, use of signs, circulars, cards or any other advertising media, including the use of internet or telephone solicitation, or representation to a government agency or to the public that such person is engaged in a cannabis business in the City.
"Gross Sales” or “Gross Receipts," means the total amount actually received from all sales; the total amount or compensation actually received for the performance of any act or service, of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made, whether or not such act or service is done as a part of or in connection with the sale of materials, goods, wares or merchandise.

Included in "gross receipts" shall be all receipts, cash, and property of any kind or nature, without any deduction there from on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, or losses or other expenses whatsoever,
“Medicinal Cannabis” or “medicinal Cannabis product” shall be defined pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 26001 and California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996).
"Person" means an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, whether organized as a nonprofit or for-profit entity, and includes the plural as well as the singular number.
"Sale" means and includes any sale, exchange, or barter of cannabis or cannabis products. "Transport" means the transfer of cannabis or cannabis products from the permitted business PGCC 4-20-22

location of one permittee or licensee to the permitted business location of another permittee or licensee, for the purposes of conducting commercial cannabis activity authorized pursuant to state law.

B. Any statutory reference set forth in Paragraph A, above, shall be deemed an item of independent significance and shall be updated to incorporate any later amendment or code modification related to that statutory provision.

Section 6. PGMC Section 6.13.040
Section 6.13.040 “Cannabis Business Tax Administration” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

A. Each entity owing the Local Cannabis Business Tax shall file a monthly Cannabis Business Tax Statement and remit any taxes due to the City of Pacific Grove -Tax Collector at 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove CA 93950.

B. The City Manager shall perform or delegate performance of all acts needed to implement this Chapter. This includes but is not limited to the authority to cause the collection and audit payments of the Local Cannabis Business Tax imposed by this Chapter.

C. The City Manager shall apportion the Local Cannabis Business Tax when warranted due to taxation of deliveries into the City, or deliveries to areas outside the City. The amount of the license tax for such a business shall be computed based on the proportion of the gross receipts of the business which are derived from its business transactions within the City; provided, that the minimum license tax for any such business shall be equal to 25 percent of the basic license tax and of the additional license tax rates otherwise applicable to the business. The situs of business transactions of a business with a fixed place of business at which customers purchase goods or merchandise shall be the location of the place of business regardless of the residence of the customers or the place of delivery of the goods or merchandise.

D. It shall be the duty of the City Manager acting through deputies or duly authorized assistants to enforce all of provisions of this chapter. The City Manager shall examine or cause to be examined all places of businesses in the City to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

E. Any tax required to be paid by any person under the provisions of this chapter shall be a debt owed by the person to the City. Any person owing money to the City under the provisions of this chapter shall be liable to an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such amount including applicable penalties and attorneys’ fees and costs.

F. No refund of an overpayment of taxes imposed by this chapter shall be allowed in whole or in part unless a claim for refund is filed with the City Manager within a period of three years from the last day of the calendar month following the period for which the overpayment was made, and all such claims for refund of the amount of the overpayment must be filed with the City Manager on forms furnished by, and in the manner prescribed by, the City Manager.

Upon the filing of such claim and when determining that an overpayment has been made, the City Manager shall authorize a refund.

PGCC 4-20-22

G. For purposes of administration and enforcement of this Chapter generally, the City Manager may from time to time promulgate such administrative rules and procedures consistent with the purpose, intent, and express terms of this Chapter as he or she deems necessary to implement or clarify such provisions or aid in enforcement.

Section 7. PGMC Section 6.13.050
Section 6.13.050 “Cannabis Business Tax Exemptions” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

6.13.050 Exemptions.

A. No tax prescribed in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to apply to any of the following persons who are exempted from payment thereof:

B. Specific Religious Exemptions. Any individual or organization identified as eligible for an exemption under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7284.1, as may be amended;
C. Conflict with Federal and State Law. Any person conducting any business exempt by virtue of the Constitution or applicable statutes of the United States or of the State of California from the payment to counties of such taxes as are herein proscribed; Section 8. PGMC Section 6.13.060
Section 6.13.060 “Penalties and Interest” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

6.13.060 Penalties for delinquencies.

A. Taxes required to be paid pursuant to this Chapter shall be deemed delinquent if not remitted to the City on or before the due date as specified in Sections 6.33.040.

B. The remittance of Local Cannabis Business Tax taxes collected or payable by collected by every person engaged in cannabis business in the City of Pacific Grove shall be delinquent if not made to the City Manager for the City of Pacific Grove, or his/her delegated agent, on or before the last day of the month following the month during which the business license taxes are collected. If those business taxes are not remitted to the City on or before the delinquency date, a penalty of 10 percent shall be assessed against the operator, and if not made on or before 30 days after the delinquency date, a total penalty of 25 percent shall be assessed against the operator.

C. In addition to the penalties imposed, any person who fails to pay any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month thereof on the amount of the unpaid tax exclusive of penalties, on the first day of the month for the full month, and will continue to accrue monthly on the unpaid tax until the balance is paid in full.

D. Whenever a check or electronic payment is submitted in payment of a the Cannabis Business Tax and the payment is subsequently returned unpaid by the bank for any reason, the taxpayer will be liable for the tax amount due plus any fees, penalties and interest PGCC 4-20-22

applicable as provided for in this Section, and any other amount allowed under state law.

Section 9. PGMC Section 6.13.070
Section 6.13.070 “Appeals” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

Any taxpayer aggrieved by any decision of the City Manager with respect to the amount of tax, interest, penalties and fees, if any, due under this Chapter may submit a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within 15 days of the serving or mailing of the determination of tax due. The timely appeal shall be referred to an Administrative Hearing Officer selected pursuant to PGMC Chapter 1.19.110. The appeal shall be deemed a request for hearing on an administrative citation. An appeal fee appeal fee shall be paid in advance in accord with the amount determined by the Master Fee Schedule. The hearing process set forth in PGMC

1.19.120, et seq., shall apply. The finding of the Administrative Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed by Chapter

1.19. Any amount found to be due shall be immediately due and payable upon the service of the notice.

Section 10. PGMC Section 6.13.080
Section 6.13.080 “Enforcement — Action to Collect.” shall be added to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code as follows:

A. Any taxes, penalties and/or fees required to be paid under the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed a debt owed to the City. Any person owing money to the City under the provisions of this Chapter shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City for the recovery of such debt. The provisions of this Section shall not be deemed a limitation upon the right of the City to bring any other action including criminal, civil and equitable actions, based upon the failure to pay the tax, penalties and/or fees imposed by this Chapter or the failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Chapter.

B. In addition to any other remedies available under federal, state, or local law, if any amount required to be paid to the City under this Chapter is not paid when due, the City Manager may, within three (3) years after the amount is due record a certificate of lien specifying the amount of taxes, fees and penalties due, and the name and address of the individual or business as it appears on the records of City. The lien shall also specify that the City has complied with all provisions of this Chapter in the determination of the amount required to be paid. From the time of the filing for record, the amount required to be paid, together with penalties thereon, constitutes a lien upon all real property in Monterey County owned by the individual or business, or subsequently acquired by the individual or business before the lien expires. The lien has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien and shall continue for ten (10) years from the date of filing of the certificate unless sooner released or otherwise discharged.

C. At any time within three (3) years after any individual or business is delinquent in the payment of any amount herein required to be paid or within three (3) years after the last recording of a certificate of lien under Subsection B of this Section, the City Manager may issue enforce any liens and collect any amount required to be paid to the City under this Chapter. A warrant may be levied and sale made pursuant to it in the same manner and with the same effect as a levy of and a sale pursuant to a writ of execution.

PGCC 4-20-22

D. At any time within three (3) years after recording a lien against any individual or business, if the lien is not discharged and released in full, the City Manager may seize any asset or property, real or personal (including bank account), of the operator and sell at public auction the asset or property, or a sufficient part of it to pay the amount due together with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinquency and any cost incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Assets or property of the business subject to seizure and sale subject to this Chapter shall not include any assets or property which is exempt from execution under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

Section 11. Severability
If any section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, each remaining section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Pacific Grove hereby declares it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance is declared invalid or unenforceable and, to that end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

Section 12. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect on the thirtieth (30th) day following certification of its approval by the electorate at the general election to be held on November 8, 2022. The tax authorized by this ordinance shall commence at the earliest date legally permissible.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE THIS ____ day of ____________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:
________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:_________________________
_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
PGCC 4-20-22

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
DAVID C. LAREDO, City Attorney
U:\GENERAL (NEW)\City of Pacific Grove\Ordinances\Cannabis\Cannabis Tax 2022 - Draft2.docx PGCC 4-20-22

ADVISORY MEASURE

CANNABIS DISPENSARY
Shall the Pacific Grove City Council be directed to consider amending its Municipal Code to allow permitting of not more than two recreational Cannabis dispensaries within the City as an authorized use.

IMPLEMENTING MEASURE

CANNABIS SALES TAX
Shall the City of Pacific Grove Municipal Code be amended to add Chapter 6.13, Cannabis Sales Tax to impose a tax on the sale or delivery of any Cannabis or Cannabis-related products within the City, the tax rate not to exceed 6% of gross sales.

NOTES:

The sales tax measure is authorizing and it would take effect upon approval by the voters. The tax authorized by the ordinance (see sample draft in separate attachment) shall commence at the earliest date legally permissible.

PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda No. 12 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Anastacia Wyatt, Senior Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Near-and Mid-Term Actions to Increase Housing Capacity and Meet State Law Action required by 4/20/2022.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Receive Presentation on Near-and Mid-Term Actions to Increase Housing Capacity and Meet State Law and Provide Recommendations

DISCUSSION
Please refer to the attached memo for a detailed discussion on opportunities to meet near- and far-term affordable housing requirements and meet State law.

OPTIONS
Provide Staff further direction.

Accept report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Recommendations in this staff report that include developing ordinances for SB 9, an emergency ordinance to prohibit conversions of multi-unit buildings and properties to single family homes; and moving forward with ballot measures for U Zones and O Zones will require identifying significant funds to pay consultants to update the ordinances in addition to increased staffing needs to move conduct ordinance updates.

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

Attachments
4-20-22 Housing Memo
SB 9 Illustration
SB 9 Fact Sheet
PGCC 4-20-22

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Anastacia Wyatt, Housing Program Manager
MEETING DATE: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Memo Describing Potential Near- and Mid-Term Actions to Increase Housing Capacity and Meet State Law
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Overview
This memo provides an update and staff recommendations on interrelated work efforts that implement priorities from last year’s Welcome Home Affordable Housing Strategy, respond to recent state legislation and relate to the Housing Element update. It covers:
• Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), Missing Middle Housing and Small Lots • Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), Objective Standards and Streamlined Review • Housing Opportunity Sites and Voter Restrictions
Alternative to consideration of these issues at the April 20, 2022, meeting, and in light of the content and complexity of this information, Council may wish to consider holding a special session focused specifically on housing in order to review these issues together.

Senate Bill 9 (SB9), Middle Housing and Small Lots
Background
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9, Atkins), signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within a single-family residential zone (R1) to build up to four units on properties typically used for one single family home. This can be done through construction of two primary units on their property, subdivision of their lot into two parcels, or both.

HCD recently released guidance for implementation of the bill’s provisions (Attachment A, SB 9 Fact Sheet of March 2022). Staff and consultants discussed SB 9 with Council at the November 3, 2021 Council Meeting, prior to the bill’s effective date and prior to the state providing guidance.

SB 9 requires ministerial review (staff-level review, without a public hearing) for applications made under the bill’s provisions, with a public official using pre-established objective development standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards (see discussion of objective standards later in this memo) to determine compliance.

The objective standards must not preclude the development of:
• Up to Two Primary Units on the parcel, or in the case of a lot split up to two primary units on each of the resulting parcels.
• Units of at least 800 square feet in size.

The bill also allows for urban lot splits—a one-time subdivision of an existing single-family residential PGCC 4-20-22

parcel into two parcels (with each resulting parcel being at least 1200 sf). Each of the resulting parcels could then develop up to two primary units (up to 800 sf in size), for a total of four units, or a primary unit and an ADU or JADU. The state sees the provisions of SB 9 and the provisions of preceding ADU legislation as complementary. Under state ADU law, any single-family property can develop up to three living units: a primary unit and two ADUs. SB 9 increases the allowed units to four, with provisions for more than one primary unit and lot splits (thereby allowing for the creation of additional for-sale or ownership units, not just the addition of for-rent ADUs).

SB 9 applies to all R-1 zoned properties with several key exceptions:
• Environmentally sensitive areas
• Environmental hazard areas if mitigations are not possible • Historic properties and districts
• Properties where the Ellis Act was used to evict tenants at any time in the last 15 years. • Projects that would demolish units rented in the last 3 years, rent-controlled units or units restricted to people of low or moderate incomes.

The attached SB 9 Illustration depicts potential scenarios that could occur on a single-family property under SB 9.

Likely Impact of SB9
SB 9 went into effect January 1, 2022. Since then, staff have responded to a small number of queries from homeowners, but to-date no applications under the provisions of SB 9 have been filed.

As discussed with Council in November, market analysis predicts that the uptake of SB 9’s provisions will be limited in part because homeowners already have many of the same rights under ADU law and because the economic value of for-sale single family homes in Pacific Grove (and elsewhere) is very high, providing limited motivation to most homeowners to undertake a major change on their property. A statewide analysis conducted by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley prior to the bill’s adoption (so not reflecting some final changes in the bill’s provisions) showed a very small percentage of single family properties being “market feasible” for redevelopment (i.e., the value of what can be achieved under SB9 being higher than the value of what is on the property today).

Similarly, during the work of the Welcome Home initiative, the economics firm ECONorthwest was engaged to look at the potential market response to expansion of Pacific Grove’s R3 zone. The outcome of that analysis was that middle housing outcomes would be unlikely with the exception of for-sale townhomes in specific circumstances. This is due to the higher economic performance of single family homes in Pacific Grove’s market. In fact, the analysis showed that it would be more likely that single family homes would displace existing duplexes and triplexes over time—a trend that is playing out in recent applications to the City.

Perhaps the biggest potential impact is in the bill’s provisions for splitting lots, allowing a homeowner to subdivide and sell a portion of their property while remaining in their home. This may be an attractive proposition to homeowners with larger lots that are physically configured to facilitate subdivision without impacting the enjoyment of their existing home.

Can SB 9 help us meet our RHNA?
The ability to count SB 9 units toward meeting the City’s RHNA is limited, at best, both because the economic motivation to redevelop is limited and there is no track record to point to as justification for PGCC 4-20-22

projected redevelopment.

To be included in the Housing Element’s site inventory, we will need to list all of the candidate sites individually and provide evidence that the listed properties are likely to undergo redevelopment within the eight-year planning period. This will require economic analysis to demonstrate financial feasibility; physical analysis to demonstrate that the projected development is achievable within individual site constraints; and an expression from the property owner that they have interest in (or intention of) redeveloping their property to create additional units.

It is more likely that “SB 9” units can be projected and counted toward our RHNA if we adopt a supportive ordinance related its implementation with provisions that support and facilitate multi-unit development consistent with our housing goals beyond what the state has now made possible. These changes would be consistent with the strategy outlined in the Welcome Home plan to promote middle housing outcomes in the R-3 zone through changes in development standards and the related use tables, as well as expansion of the area to which R-3 zoning is applied, as discussed in the next section.

SB 9 and Missing Middle Housing
While SB 9 may feel like a big shift, the types of homes it supports are actually consistent with what can already be found in Pacific Grove’s older neighborhoods, where duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and small apartment buildings are interspersed among single-family homes. In Pacific Grove, the R3 and R4 zones are medium density residential zone districts that allow for these “missing middle housing” types.

This term was coined to describe these housing types which used to be more common as part of residential neighborhoods before zoning changes made them difficult or prohibited. Most housing development now is in just two types in most communities: for-sale detached single family homes and for-rent apartments.

During the Welcome Home planning effort, there was an expressed desire to expand the R3 areas to support more middle housing development (Action 3b) as well as support for allowing small lot subdivisions, consistent with the city’s historical development pattern (Action 3c). SB 9 helps to implement these priorities, though differently than what was envisioned during the Welcome Home conversations, in that it applies to all R1 zones. Perhaps most importantly it removes the requirement for environmental analysis under CEQA for actions taken consistent with the bill’s provisions.

SB 9 and Small Lots
SB 9 applies only to the R1 zone district. However, in the Welcome Home strategy, the community and Council expressed a desire to facilitate lot splits in other zones as well, consistent with the city’s historic development pattern. In those conversations, the focus was on allowing for subdivision of existing properties to create 1800 square foot lots. However, SB 9 allows for creation of lots as small as 1200 square feet.

An implementing ordinance for SB 9 must be consistent with the state’s provisions, allow for lot splits that result in parcels as small as 1200 sf in R1 zones. However, the city may, at its discretion, incorporate criteria for lot splits in other zones as well, establishing appropriate standards and procedure for enabling such subdivisions.

Staff Recommendation
To respond to the requirements of SB 9 and advance the goals for missing middle housing and small lots called for in the Welcome Home Affordable Housing Strategy, staff recommends the following actions and seeks guidance from Council on related questions:

PGCC 4-20-22

1 SB 9 Implementation (R1 Zones)
Staff recommends developing a supportive ordinance and related objective standards to implement SB 9 in Pacific Grove. In preparing the ordinance, staff will work with the Housing Advisory Group and Planning Commission to consider and recommend to Council appropriate standards to meet or exceed state law, including requirements related to parking, owner occupancy, unit size and ADUs.

Does Council have feedback or direction to provide to staff related to developing an SB 9 Implementation Ordinance?
2 R2 / R3 Zone Changes to Support Multi-Unit Development and Small Lots Through the Housing Element update, we will evaluate changes to the R2 and R3 zone districts and expansion of the areas to which R3 is applied, including changes that would give preference to multi-unit developments (e.g., duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, etc.) over single family homes in the R3 zone (such as greater lot coverage, height and/or floor area for multiunit developments compared to single family homes; listing single family homes as a conditional use rather than permitted use; or other changes). As part of this work, staff will also evaluate appropriate lot division standards, informed by the provisions that now apply to lots in the R1 zone as a result of SB 9.

Is Council supportive of this direction related to the Housing Element update? 3 Emergency Ordinance to Prohibit Conversions to Single Family in R2, R3 and R4 Zones To counter the market pressure to convert existing multi-unit developments to single family homes (and subsequent loss of more affordable units to higher cost homes), staff recommends developing an emergency ordinance for Council adoption, with related findings, to prohibit conversion of duplexes and other multi-unit buildings in the R2, R3 and R4 zones to single family homes.

Does Council support development of an emergency ordinance to limit or prohibit conversion of multi-unit buildings to single family homes in the R2, R3 and R4 districts? Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), Objective Standards and Streamlined Review Background
Currently, Pacific Grove uses both subjective and objective standards to review and approve (or deny) residential development. This can create an obstacle to new housing development as review processes drag on and the people involved interpret and apply standards differently. They also make it challenging for applicants considering potential development to accurately evaluate development feasibility and design proposals to meet expectations.

To support the goal of increasing housing development, several new state laws require the use of objective standards as part of a streamlined review process for qualifying developments. To-date these laws have been focused on multi-unit developments that create affordable lower income housing. • Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) was passed as part of a 15-bill package of housing legislation in 2017 aimed at addressing California’s housing shortage and high housing costs. It established a Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process for housing development in localities that have not made sufficient progress towards meeting their allocation of the regional housing need PGCC 4-20-22

(RHNA).

Pacific Grove is subject to SB 35’s streamlining provisions for developments that include at least 50% of units affordable to lower income households. This is because Pacific Grove, like most California jurisdictions, has not made sufficient progress in meeting its lower income housing needs allocation (although it has met its RHNA for above moderate income housing, which means the city is not subject to another set of state code provisions). • Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) also establishes the requirement for objective standards and streamlined review of units created under the bill’s provisions, as discussed previously in this memo.

What is an “objective standard?”
The state defines an “objective” standard as one that involves no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and which can be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion that is available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal.

Example of a subjective (non-objective) standard:
• New structures should be designed to maintain the character of the area.

Examples of objective standards:
• Exterior finishes must be stone, brick, wood and/or stucco. • Building facades greater than 50 feet in length must incorporate at least one offset of a minimum 18 inches deep and 20 feet long, extending the full height of the building. • No mirrored glass is allowed.

What standards are currently used in Pacific Grove?
The city’s existing design guidelines are for single family residences. Like many design guideline documents, the directions it provides are richly illustrated but also subject to interpretation by the applicant and reviewer. For example, Guideline #3 states: Avoid large expanses of paved areas; and Guideline #15 states: Open space and landscaped areas should blend visually with adjacent properties.

The definition of what constitutes a “large expanse of paved area” or the interpretation of whether a landscaped area is “visually blended” with an adjacent property is left to the reader.

In reviewing multi-unit developments, the City relies on its zoning standards, which are generally quantified measures that can be objectively applied (e.g., measurements of height, floor area ratio, lot coverage, dwelling units per acre, etc.). These standards provide clear guidance to applicants in developing their project proposal and evaluating economic feasibility, and can be applied by staff in their review of proposals with no or minimal interpretation needed.

The step in the review process for multi-unit developments that is most subjective is architectural or design review. Because the City does not have design guidelines applicable to these developments, the staff and Architectural Review Board look to guidance from the Pacific Grove General Plan (from 1994) and specifically its chapter on Urban Structure and Design, to determine whether a proposed development’s design is consistent with adopted policies. Given the broad and aspirational language of these plan documents, the application of their guidance is highly subjective.

Why are “subjective” standards problematic?
While many design guidelines were written with the intent of helping ensure that new developments are consistent with a community’s unique character and as an aide to both applicants and decision makers, the PGCC 4-20-22

application of design guidelines has been problematic in many communities around the state. Without clear, objective language, design guidelines have been subject to different interpretations and led to multiples rounds of review and revision until the applicant “gets it right.” The resulting delay and related cost impacts have stopped some developments from ever getting built. For developers seeking to build lower cost housing, this is particularly problematic. Unlike luxury housing, they don’t have the margins to absorb these extra costs. In some cases, people opposed to a development purposefully use the design review process to stymie and stop the development from becoming reality. In the end, even developments that are consistent with established zoning and other development regulations are kept from being built— sometimes not even by formal denial (that they can appeal), but through “death by process.” The shift to objective standards is seen as a remedy to these issues, such that developments which meet a City’s clear, established rules have a path to approval within a reasonable period of time. The core idea is that community input helps to define clear guidance for the design character and standards that new development must meet prior to a development proposal being made. At the time of actual application, it is then a clearer, less time-consuming path to ensuring that the proposed development is consistent with the adopted standards. In this sense, it does not remove community input from the process, but rather moves it to an earlier step in shaping the standards that are subsequently applied.

In some cases (for example, in developments proposed under Senate Bill (SB) 35, a public design review meeting may be held so that elected or appointed decision makers are part of the process (see What is “Streamlined Review?”).

What is “Streamlined Review?”
Connected to several of the state laws that mandate objective standards is the requirement for “streamlined review.” This is also sometimes referred to as “ministerial review” or “by-right zoning.” In conjunction with objective standards, the intent of streamlined review is to provide applicants with a predictable path to approval: the City establishes clear and consistent rules; applicants are able to develop their proposals based on those rules; and the steps and timeline for review and approval are known upfront. This is a significant shift from the “discretionary review” process that has been the practice in many communities, especially for higher density and affordable housing.

In streamlined review, the evaluation of a proposal against established standards is conducted by staff (or ministerially). Community input has already helped shape the standards, which have been adopted by Council. While in some cases a public meeting may be held as part of the design review process, any direction provided to the applicant, and any ruling of approval or denial, must be based on the objective standards in place at the time the application was made, and must occur within the established timeframe (which may vary by type of development, as provided for under state law).

What is Pacific Grove’s current review process?
Most developments in Pacific Grove are currently subject to a discretionary review process, in which subjective design guidelines or interpretation of general plan policies (in addition to zoning standards) are applied in determining whether a proposal is approved or denied. In most cases, an initial review is conducted by staff and a recommendation is made to the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and/or Council. The deciding body may follow or differ from the staff recommendation, and sometimes may add conditions of approval to their decision.

In many but not all cases, the steps in the process are:

PGCC 4-20-22

1 Pre-Application Work. Applicants rely on the City’s published zoning standards, general plan policies and design guidelines to shape their proposals in a manner they think is consistent with adopted policies. In particular they may look to other recent projects to ascertain what will be supported. Oftentimes, one or more meetings with staff help to inform their application prior to formal submittal.
2 Application. The formal application is made; the review process is determined (based on specifics of the project); and development review fees are charged). 3 Staff Review, Findings and Recommendations. The planning, building and public works staff review the proposal. They may request additional information or revisions, and develop their findings about consistency with adopted policies and recommendation to the pertinent board(s).
4 Architectural Review Board and/or Historic Resources Committee (HRC) Hearing(s) and Decision. If an architectural permit is required, the development application is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and also reviewed by the Historic Resources Committee (HRC) if it is in a historic district or registered as a historic site. In their reviews, the ARB and HRC rely on the staff memo and recommendations as well as their interpretation of the City’s design guidelines, zoning standards, general plan policies and other ordinances.

Notification about the proposed development and public hearing date is posted on the site and sent to adjacent and nearby property owners. Public testimony is provided at the hearing along with the staff findings and recommendation. If requested and/or desired by the applicant, the applicant may make refinements to the design of their project and return for another hearing.

This process may be repeated for additional hearings if needed, until the ARB and/or HRC finds that the proposal is consistent with adopted policies. 5 Planning Commission Hearing(s) and Decision. For a small number of projects (mostly appeals), the development proposal is also reviewed by the Pacific Grove Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may also call-up a decision of the ARB or HRC. The Commission’s role is to ensure that project is consistent with the City’s zoning standards and general plan policies. They may also concur with or revise the ARB’s decision with regard to design. As in the ARB and HRC processes, the Planning Commission’s meeting is noticed and a public hearing is held to hear testimony from neighbors, the applicant and other interested parties. Staff findings and recommendations along with public testimony and the Commission’s own deliberations inform their finding or approval or denial. 6 City Council Call-up, Hearing(s) and Decision. Decisions made by the Planning Commission may be “called up” by the City Council for their consideration. In doing so, they may reach a conclusion consistent with the ARB and/or Commission, or may overturn their decision. The Council is has the final say in deciding whether the development is approved or denied. In this process, another public hearing is held so that the Council may also hear testimony about the proposed development.
7 Coastal Commission Appeal. Developments that are in the coastal zone are subject to the City’s adopted Local Coastal Program and subject to potential appeal by the Coastal Commission.

In most cases, the process outlined above is completed within a 3 to 6 month period. However, more contentious or high-visibility proposals may take up to 2 years (as for the Holman Building project at 520 PGCC 4-20-22

Lighthouse).

What would be a streamlined process?
SB 35 and SB 9 establish parameters for the timing to complete streamlined review. In short, the steps for streamlined review must:
• Be completed within 90 to 120 days (depending on size of development) • Provide a “letter of completeness” to the applicant within 30 to 60 days (depending on the state provisions applicable to the development) • Rely on objective standards in place at the time of application in determining approval or denial
• Complete any design review within the specified time period. While this review may involve an elected or appointed body, their design input and decision must be based on adopted objective standards.
• In most cases, there is no public hearing (and if there is a public hearing, any final decision must still be based upon adopted objective standards).

Further, Senate Bill 8 (effective January 1, 2022) extends the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act to housing projects of one unit or more that require no discretionary approvals. As a consequence, SB 9 projects are subject to the Permit Streamlining Act’s requirements for completeness letters (within 30 days of submittal) and approval deadlines (within 60 days of determining that the project is exempt from CEQA).

How can we ensure new developments don’t destroy the character of PG? These new state requirements will change the way in which developments are reviewed and approved in Pacific Grove and throughout the state. However, they do not mean that any application that is made must be approved. All developments must be consistent with adopted standards, whether those standards were defined at the state level (in the case of many ADU projects or SB 9 projects) or locally. But it is imperative that these standards be objective. Therefore, ensuring that new developments maintain and enhance the character of Pacific Grove means we need to develop objective standards that make it clear to everyone what that means in terms of the design of projects in specific parts of the city. In many communities, a shift toward a more “form based code” is being undertaken in order to achieve the desired outcomes and meet the test of objectivity.

Staff Recommendations
To meet state law requirements and ensure meaningful objective design and development standards that protect and enhance the unique character of Pacific Grove, staff recommends the following next steps:

1. Convene a Design Standards Committee. The community is passionate about design and the built character of Pacific Grove. We propose returning to Council with proposed membership of a Design Standards Committee in conjunction with approval to prepare an RFP to undertake the work.

2. Explore Potential Partnership with Adjacent Jurisdictions. Marin County has undertaken a multi-jurisdiction process to develop objective design and development standards, described on their website here. This kind of collaborative approach has potential cost savings as well as cross-jurisdictional learning opportunities. An on-our-own approach will likely cost between $120k and $150k. We hope that a collaborative approach could bring this cost down and result in a stronger product.

3. Conduct Community Engagement in Conjunction with the Housing Element Update.

One of the biggest costs will be community engagement, to build understanding of why this PGCC 4-20-22

work is being done and support for its outcomes. Because the City is getting started on a major community conversation about housing and our future in relation to the Housing Element update, there are synergies and cost savings of doing this engagement together.

4. Return to Council with a Draft RFP for developing Objective Design and Development Standards for Pacific Grove.

Does Council support staff undertaking the steps outlined above? Housing Opportunity Sites and Voter Restrictions
Background
In previous meetings, staff has presented an overview housing opportunity sites that are owned by the city and, in some cases, Pacific Grove Unified School District, which could be developed with affordable housing and complementary community uses. Some but not all of these sites are subject to voter restrictions enacted in the 1980s that prohibit development of housing on them.

The following map, from the Welcome Home Background Report, illustrates the zone districts and areas where voter restrictions are in place.

PGCC 4-20-22

Ballot Options for Consideration
To pursue housing opportunities on sites currently zoned “U” or “O” will require removing the voter restrictions. This will require a ballot item and voter approval, ideally within the timeframe of the Housing Element update so that relevant sites can be included in the Housing Element’s site inventory.

To prepare for this, staff has developed the following options for Council’s direction prior to developing ballot language for consideration:

1. Request removal of restrictions on “U” and “O” districts for the purpose of affordable housing development (with definition of what constitutes affordable housing).

2. Request targeted removal of restrictions for priority sites, identified in the ballot item, for the purpose of affordable housing development (with definition of what constitutes affordable housing).

3. Request voter approval of Council authority to approve affordable housing development on “U” and “O” zoned sites based on established criteria and definitions.

PGCC 4-20-22

4. Note: many of the “O” zoned sites are in the Coastal zone; any changes would also require a major text and mapping amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and certification by the Coastal Commission.

Request for Direction
Staff seeks Council input and direction for development of ballot language based on one of the options outlined above (or a hybrid).

RECOMMENDATION
In addition to seeking Council feedback on the information presented, including work to be undertaken in conjunction with the Housing Element update, staff specifically requests Council direction for moving forward on the following near-term priorities:
a) Develop a draft ordinance to locally implement the requirements of Senate Bill 9 as part of a broader strategy to support and facilitate Middle Housing outcomes in appropriate zone districts; b) Develop an emergency ordinance to limit or prohibit conversions of multi-unit buildings and properties in the R2, R3 and R4 zones to single family homes; c) Develop an RFP and related process, ideally in collaboration with adjacent jurisdictions, to undertake development of Objective Design and Development Standards for Pacific Grove; and d) Develop ballot language for Council consideration to request voter approval of changes to the “U” and “O” zones as part of the November 2022 election.

PGCC 4-20-22

SB 9 Illustration depicting potential scenarios on a single-family property under SB9 PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development SB 9 Fact Sheet
On the Implementation of Senate Bill 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021)
Housing Policy Development Division
March 2022
PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 1 This Fact Sheet is for informational purposes only and is not intended to implement or interpret SB 9. HCD does not have authority to enforce SB 9, although violations of SB 9 may concurrently violate other housing laws where HCD does have enforcement authority, including but not limited to the laws addressed in this document. As local jurisdictions implement SB 9, including adopting local ordinances, it is important to keep these and other housing laws in mind. The Attorney General may also take independent action to enforce SB 9. For a full list of statutes over which HCD has enforcement authority, visit HCD’s Accountability and Enforcement webpage.

Executive Summary of SB 9
Senate Bill (SB) 9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) requires ministerial approval of a housing development with no more than two primary units in a single-family zone, the subdivision of a parcel in a single-family zone into two parcels, or both. SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. SB 9 contains eligibility criteria addressing environmental site constraints (e.g., wetlands, wildfire risk, etc.), anti-displacement measures for renters and low-income households, and the protection of historic structures and districts. Key provisions of the law require a local agency to modify or eliminate objective development standards on a project-by-project basis if they would prevent an otherwise eligible lot from being split or prevent the construction of up to two units at least 800 square feet in size. For the purposes of this document, the terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior ADU or otherwise defined.

Single-Family Residential Zones Only (Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7 subd. (a)(3)(A)) The parcel that will contain the proposed housing development or that will be subject to the lot split must be located in a single-family residential zone. Parcels located in multifamily residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., are not subject to SB 9 mandates even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. While some zones are readily identifiable as single-family residential zones (e.g., R-1 “SingleFamily Residential”), others may not be so obvious. Some local agencies have multiple single-family zones with subtle distinctions between them relating to minimum lot sizes or allowable uses. In communities where there may be more than one single-family residential zone, the local agency should carefully review the zone district descriptions in the zoning code and the land use designation descriptions in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. This review will enable the local agency to identify zones whose primary purpose is single-family residential uses and which are therefore subject to SB 9.

Considerations such as minimum lot sizes, natural features such as hillsides, or the permissibility of keeping horses should not factor into the determination.

PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 2 Residential Uses Only
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a))
SB 9 concerns only proposed housing developments containing no more than two residential units (i.e., one or two). The law does not otherwise change the allowable land uses in the local agency’s single-family residential zone(s). For example, if the local agency’s single-family zone(s) does not currently allow commercial uses such as hotels or restaurants, SB 9 would not allow such uses.

Ministerial Review
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 66411.7, subds. (a), (b)(1)) An application made under SB 9 must be considered ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing. Ministerial review means a process for development approval involving no personal judgment by the public official as to the wisdom of carrying out the project. The public official merely ensures that the proposed development meets all the applicable objective standards for the proposed action but uses no special discretion or judgment in reaching a decision. A ministerial review is nearly always a “staff-level review.” This means that a staff person at the local agency reviews the application, often using a checklist, and compares the application materials (e.g., site plan, project description, etc.) with the objective development standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards.

Objective Standards
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c)) The local agency may apply objective development standards (e.g., front setbacks and heights), objective subdivision standards (e.g., minimum lot depths), and objective design standards (e.g., roof pitch, eave projections, façade materials, etc.) as long as they would not physically preclude either of the following:

Up to Two Primary Units. The local agency must allow up to two primary units (i.e., one or two) on the subject parcel or, in the case of a lot split, up to two primary units on each of the resulting parcels.

Units at least 800 square feet in size. The local agency must allow each primary unit to be at least 800 square feet in size.

The terms “objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. Any objective standard that would physically preclude either or both of the two objectives noted above must be modified or PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 3 waived by the local agency in order to facilitate the development of the project, with the following two exceptions:

Setbacks for Existing Structures. The local agency may not require a setback for an existing structure or for a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure (i.e., a building reconstructed on the same footprint).

Four-Foot Side and Rear Setbacks. SB 9 establishes an across-the-board maximum four-foot side and rear setbacks. The local agency may choose to apply a lesser setback (e.g., 0-4 feet), but it cannot apply a setback greater than four feet. The local agency cannot apply existing side and rear setbacks applicable in the single-family residential zone(s). Additionally, the four-foot side and rear setback standards are not subject to modification. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(B); 66411.7, subdivision (c)(3).)
One-Unit Development
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a); 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A)) SB 9 requires the ministerial approval of either one or two residential units. Government Code section 65852.21 indicates that the development of just one single-family home was indeed contemplated and expected. For example, the terms “no more than two residential units” and “up to two units” appear in the first line of the housing development-related portion of SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (a)) and in the line obligating local agencies to modify development standards to facilitate a housing development. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (b)(2)(A).)
Findings of Denial
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (d); 66411.7, subd. (d)) SB 9 establishes a high threshold for the denial of a proposed housing development or lot split. Specifically, a local agency’s building official must make a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(2), upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).)
PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 4 Environmental Site Constraints
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2) and (a)(6); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(E)) A proposed housing development or lot split is not eligible under SB 9 if the parcel contains any of the site conditions listed in Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B-K). Examples of conditions that may disqualify a project from using SB 9 include the presence of farmland, wetlands, fire hazard areas, earthquake hazard areas, flood risk areas, conservation areas, wildlife habitat areas, or conservation easements. SB 9 incorporates by reference these environmental site constraint categories that were established with the passing of the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35, Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017). Local agencies may consult HCD’s Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process Guidelines for additional detail on how to interpret these environmental site constraints.

Additionally, a project is not eligible under SB 9 if it is located in a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or as a historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (n)) Because the approval of a qualifying project under SB 9 is deemed a ministerial action, CEQA does not apply to the decision to grant an application for a housing development or a lot split, or both. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080, subd. (b)(1) [CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15268.) For this reason, a local agency must not require an applicant to perform environmental impact analysis under CEQA for applications made under SB 9. Additionally, if a local agency chooses to adopt a local ordinance to implement SB 9 (instead of implementing the law directly from statute), the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is not considered a project under CEQA. In other words, the preparation and adoption of the ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

Anti-Displacement Measures
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(3); 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(D)) A site is not eligible for a proposed housing development or lot split if the project would require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing: (1) housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income; (2) housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or (3) housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 5 Lot Split Requirements
(Reference: Gov. Code, § 66411.7)
SB 9 does not require a local agency to approve a parcel map that would result in the creation of more than two lots and more than two units on a lot resulting from a lot split under Government Code section 66411.7. A local agency may choose to allow more than two units, but it is not required to under the law. A parcel may only be subdivided once under Government Code section 66411.7. This provision prevents an applicant from pursuing multiple lot splits over time for the purpose of creating more than two lots. SB 9 also does not require a local agency to approve a lot split if an adjacent lot has been subject to a lot split in the past by the same property owner or a person working in concert with that same property owner.

Accessory Dwelling Units
(Reference: Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (j); 66411.7, subd. (f)) SB 9 and ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22) are complementary. The requirements of each can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both “SB 9 Units” and ADUs. However, specific provisions of SB 9 typically overlap with State ADU Law only to a limited extent on a relatively small number of topics. Treating the provisions of these two laws as identical or substantially similar may lead a local agency to implement the laws in an overly restrictive or otherwise inaccurate way. “Units” Defined. The three types of housing units that are described in SB 9 and related ADU Law are presented below to clarify which development scenarios are (and are not) made possible by SB 9. The definitions provided are intended to be read within the context of this document and for the narrow purpose of implementing SB 9.

Primary Unit. A primary unit (also called a residential dwelling unit or residential unit) is typically a single-family residence or a residential unit within a multi-family residential development. A primary unit is distinct from an ADU or a Junior ADU.

Examples of primary units include a single-family residence (i.e., one primary unit), a duplex (i.e., two primary units), a four-plex (i.e., four primary units), etc.

Accessory Dwelling Unit. An ADU is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel on which the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Junior ADU is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A Junior ADU may include separate sanitation facilities or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.

PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 6 The terms “unit,” “housing unit,” “residential unit,” and “housing development” mean primary unit(s) unless specifically identified as an ADU or Junior ADU or otherwise defined. This distinction is critical to successfully implementing SB 9 because state law applies different requirements (and provides certain benefits) to ADUs and Junior ADUs that do not apply to primary units.

Number of ADUs Allowed. ADUs can be combined with primary units in a variety of ways to achieve the maximum unit counts provided for under SB 9. SB 9 allows for up to four units to be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes regarding total maximum unit counts are identical.

Lot Split. When a lot split occurs, the local agency must allow up to two units on each lot resulting from the lot split. In this situation, all three unit types (i.e., primary unit, ADU, and Junior ADU) count toward this two-unit limit. For example, the limit could be reached on each lot by creating two primary units, or a primary unit and an ADU, or a primary unit and a Junior ADU. By building two units on each lot, the overall maximum of four units required under SB 9 is achieved. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j).) Note that the local agency may choose to allow more than two units per lot if desired.

No Lot Split. When a lot split has not occurred, the lot is eligible to receive ADUs and/or Junior ADUs as it ordinarily would under ADU law. Unlike when a project is proposed following a lot split, the local agency must allow, in addition to one or two primary units under SB 9, ADUs and/or JADUs under ADU Law. It is beyond the scope of this document to identify every combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs possible under SB 9 and ADU Law. However, in no case does SB 9 require a local agency to allow more than four units on a single lot, in any combination of primary units, ADUs, and Junior ADUs.

See HCD’s ADU and JADU webpage for more information and resources.

Relationship to Other State Housing Laws
SB 9 is one housing law among many that have been adopted to encourage the production of homes across California. The following represent some, but not necessarily all, of the housing laws that intersect with SB 9 and that may be impacted as SB 9 is implemented locally.

Housing Element Law. To utilize projections based on SB 9 toward a jurisdiction’s regional housing need allocation, the housing element must: 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute an impediment for additional residential use, 3) identify any governmental constraints to the use of SB 9 in the creation of units (including land use controls, fees, PGCC 4-20-22

California Department of Housing and Community Development – SB 9 Fact Sheet 7 and other exactions, as well as locally adopted ordinances that impact the cost and supply of residential development), and 4) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through SB 9. Learn more on HCD’s Housing Elements webpage.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019. An affected city or county is limited in its ability to amend its general plan, specific plans, or zoning code in a way that would improperly reduce the intensity of residential uses. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) This limitation applies to residential uses in all zones, including single-family residential zones. “Reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) A local agency should proceed with caution when adopting a local ordinance that would impose unique development standards on units proposed under SB 9 (but that would not apply to other developments). Any proposed modification to an existing development standard applicable in the single-family residential zone must demonstrate that it would not result in a reduction in the intensity of the use. HCD recommends that local agencies rely on the existing objective development, subdivision, and design standards of its singlefamily residential zone(s) to the extent possible. Learn more about Designated Jurisdictions Prohibited from Certain Zoning-Related Actions on HCD’s website.

Housing Accountability Act. Protections contained in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Permit Streaming Act (PSA) apply to housing developments pursued under SB 9. (Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5; 65905.5; 65913.10; 65940 et seq.) The definition of “housing development project” includes projects that involve no discretionary approvals and projects that include a proposal to construct a single dwelling unit. (Gov. Code, § 65905.5, subd. (b)(3).) For additional information about the HAA and PSA, see HCD’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory.

Rental Inclusionary Housing. Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g), authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information, see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.

PGCC 4-20-22

Agenda No. 13 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: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: Resolution Recognizing Gerry Low Sabado Action required by 4/20/2022.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and approve a Posthumous Resolution recognizing the life and legacy of Gerry Low Sabado and the May14, 2022 Walk of Remembrance in her memory.

DISCUSSION
At its November 8, 2021 meeting the DEI Task Force approved a subcommittee, whose duties were in part to draft a posthumous recognition of the contributions of the late Gerry Low Sabado.

Gerry Low Sabado was a fifth generation descendant of residents of the Chinese Village community at Point Almejas – Point Alones in Pacific Grove. She made it her life’s work, for over a decade, to bring the hidden history of the Village to light, to draw attention to the lasting contributions made by Chinese settlers and citizens to Pacific Grove and the Monterey Peninsula, to bring understanding of the mistreatment, discrimination and injustice faced by these Pacific Grove residents to the 21st century.

Gerry believed, and acted, from a place of learning, community and always the belief in “change with kindness.’
At its March 14, 2022, the DEI Task Force approved the resolution and recommended that it be placed on the Council's agenda for approval.

OPTIONS
Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Reso
PGCC 4-20-22

PGCC 4-20-22

RESOLUTION NO. 22-xxx

POSTUMOUS RECOGNITION OF GERRY LOW SABADO

FINDINGS

1. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado was a Fifth-Generation descendant of Point Almejas – Point Alones Chinese Village settlers; great grand-daughter of Quock Mui, first documented Chinese American woman born in the Monterey area who grew up at the Point Almejas - Point Alones Chinese Village in Pacific Grove; great grand-daughter of Quock Tuck Lee, Chinese American citizen born at Point Almejas – Point Alones, advocate and activist for the Chinese Village community, and others; and

2. WHEREAS, Gerry Low was born in Monterey to Edwin and Mai (Jone) Low, attended local schools with her three sisters; met Randy Sabado at CSU Hayward, obtained a BS in Education, married Randy and became parents of Amber and Brandon, sixth generation Pacific Grove Chinese Village descendants; and

3. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s caring approach and passion for education and discovery, as a preschool teacher and director in Fremont for over two decades, had a profound impact on children’s and families’ lives, then and now; and

4. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s subsequent discovery, as an adult, of her family’s history of accomplishments and persecutions created her unquenchable interest in the history of Chinese Americans in Pacific Grove and California, from 1853 to the present day, and led to her enthusiasm for sharing that history in every way possible with everyone she met; and

5. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s drive to highlight the history of the Chinese in the Monterey Bay area, and the impact they had on the development of fisheries and marine science in California, sprang from her family’s participation in the first commercial squid fishery, specimen collecting for Stanford University, longtime ownership of Regal Seafood in Monterey and exclusive supplier for Starkist Fisheries and local restaurants and markets in the Monterey area; and

6. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s identification of an ancestor’s photo at the Point Lobos Whaler’s Cabin brought home to her the need to bring the region’s Chinese history to light; her involvement in the 2003 CSUMB documentary “By Light of Lanterns” helped her find her voice as a Pacific Grove Chinese American Village descendant; her presence at an archaeological excavation of her ancestors’ homes at the Village site at Hopkins Marine Station in 2007 caused her to realize the need for education about the Pacific Grove Chinese Village; and

7. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s tireless years of efforts to gain recognition for the Point Almejas – Point Alones Village, and accurately portray the strength and humanity PGCC 4-20-22

of local Chinese Americans in the face of decades of prejudice, mistreatment and discrimination, resulted in the first annual “Walk of Remembrance” along the shoreline to the Village site to honor the ancestors and their descendants, in 2009; to a commemorative plaque installed in 2014 outside the Village site along the Recreation Trail; to improvements to the Recreation Trail mural, Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History exhibits, to being a narrator in the Monterey Bay Aquarium program entitled “Turning the Tide : The Story of Monterey Bay” which tells the story of peoples who immigrated to Monterey to make a living from the Bay, to inclusion of the Village history in the 2021 Recreation Trail audio walking tour; and

8. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s passion, perseverance and dedication to telling the true story of local Chinese Americans in our history was recognized by numerous citations and awards, including the Monterey Bay Chinese Association, the Monterey Bay Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution, the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Monterey County Chapter Ralph B. Atkinson Award for Civil Liberties, City of Pacific Grove Proclamations, recognition by the Museum of Chinese in America of New York, and many, many others; and

9. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado was unwavering in her sense of justice, honor and hope towards her ancestors, descendants and the possibility of change; made numerous educational presentations to audiences of all ages and types; spoke at an anti-AsianAmerican Hate Rally in 2021 as one of her last actions; tried to work with Feast of Lanterns event organizers for many years to remove culturally objectionable aspects; and in 2022 the event was ended; and

10. WHEREAS, Gerry Low Sabado’s life and actions created long lasting awareness and understanding of the contributions and heritage of Chinese Americans in our community; her work as a community preservationist and enthusiastic teacher was done with heartfelt connections and extraordinary kindness; and her life of “good trouble” and “Change with Kindness” is an inspiration to us all.

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

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

2. The Council authorizes this posthumous recognition of Gerry Low Sabado with appreciation for her tireless work to advance the City of Pacific Grove’s understanding of the cultural history, struggles, enterprise, and resilience of the early Chinese settlers and citizens at Point Almejas – Point Alones, connecting our knowledge of the ancestors and descendants with their lasting impact on Pacific Grove, California, and our nation.

PGCC 4-20-22

3. The Council recognizes the May 14, 2022 Annual Walk of Remembrance in memory of Gerry Low Sabado’s life of care, curiosity, courage, connection and community, leading to greater understanding of Pacific Grove’s diverse heritage, appreciation of the lasting contributions of the Point Alones Chinese settlers and descendants, and bringing about change with kindness for the future.

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

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this _____ day of ______________, _______, 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 4-20-22

Agenda No. 13 B

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: April 20, 2022
SUBJECT: 4Leaf, Inc. Contract Amendment - Multiple Services Action required by 4/20/2022.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to approve a contract amendment with 4Leaf, Inc. not to exceed $230,000.00 for services related to:

Interim Community Development Director,
Tree Permit Audit,
Senior Inspector,
Planning Services, and
Estimated Plan Check work required for an anticipated large-scale project submittal.

DISCUSSION
In September of 2019, the City entered into a contract with 4Leaf, Inc. (4Leaf) for building permit issuance, building inspection services, and building plan review services with Building Official oversight and response. Since that time, the City's experience with 4Leaf has been positive, as has feedback from the community, contractors, developers and other members of the public who regularly interface with 4Leaf personnel within the City's Community Development Department.

One of 4Leaf's attributes in providing building & safety and related services is their ability to scale up, or scale down, as the City's needs require. Related services offered by 4Leaf include planning, code enforcement, administrative assistance and department management. Accordingly, when the Community Development Director recently announced her resignation from the City, and a need for an Interim Community Development Director presented itself, 4Leaf was approached. 4Leaf proposed an interim solution wherein the City's Chief Building Official, John Kuehl, could temporarily serve in a dual capacity: Interim Community Development Director/Chief Building Official.

Mr. Kuehl was identified to serve in this temporary dual capacity based upon his demonstrated leadership, management skill, knowledge and understanding of Community Development Department operations, familiarity with existing staff, fifteen year tenure with the City, and positive reputation within the community and building industry. To allow for the temporary addition of duties (Interim Community Development Director) to his current role, additional as-need senior building inspector PGCC 4-20-22

services will be needed. Further, to address the fact that the departing Community Development Director is also a working planner, and that the department is in need of additional planning resources, a full-time senior-level contract planner is recommended as well. The additional building inspection and planning assistance is proposed for the next 3 or 4 months, in order to allow for the anticipated timeline for a recruitment and placement of a permanent Community Development Director.

Separate and distinct from the temporary staffing needs of the Community Development Department, the City also approached 4Leaf about the possibility of reviewing past-issued tree permits, to ensure municipal code compliance for replacement tree planting and/or payment of in lieu fees. 4Leaf has proposed temporary code inspection and administrative personnel to complete this audit work (proposed for permits dating back to 2018).

Lastly, the City anticipates construction plan submittal for the approved P.G. Hotel project within the 2nd Quarter of 2022. To provide requisite plan check services, 4Leaf is recommending the additional authorization of up to $100,000 in anticipated corresponding staffing services to review, comment and correct plan documents. Of course, this cost is reimbursed to the City through fees paid by the applicant at the time of plan submittal.

Attached to this agenda report is a proposed 4Leaf Task Order for the services described above in the amount of $196,960. To address any additional contingencies that might be required for the proposed services, an approximate fifteen percent contingency (15%) has been added to the task order total for a recommended contract amendment amount of $230,000.

OPTIONS

1. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

An additional appropriation of $106,000 is needed from the General Fund to the support the $230,000 contract. The additional $124,000 is anticipated to come from professional service agreements that have been moved to the Fiscal Year 22/23 Proposed Budget and $24,000 in salary savings from vacant positions.

If approved, a budget amendment ordinance will be brought forward in May to reflect the additional appropriation of funds.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
4Leaf Task Order
PGCC 4-20-22

Task Order: Additional Community Development Services
04/06/22
J3781
Craig Tole
Additional Community Development Services
4/4/22 - 6/30/22
PROPOSAL #: P4832
ITEM: I Personnel Estimated UNIT ESTIMATED
Additional Community Development Services Hours PRICE TOTAL John Kuehl 392 $35 $13,720
Code Enforcement Tree Service George Cortez 40 $95 $3,800 Administrator Tree Service Vanessa Morales 124 $60 $7,440 Senior Inspector As-Needed TBD 120 $110 $13,200
Dara Sanders 392 $150 $58,800
TBD $100,000
Preliminary Sub-Total of Services provided by 4LEAF $196,960 Preliminary Estimated Fees $196,960
Project Management Fee N/A $0
Total Preliminary Estimated Fees Not to Exceed $196,960 Estimate is seeking a task order to provide Interim Community Development Services. This will be in addition to the services 4LEAF currently performs.

This budget is estimated through the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2022). Additional budgeting will be required for the new fiscal year.

This is a straight time estimate. 4LEAF will bill on a time and materials basis Per the Terms and Conditions of our contracted fee schedule.

Due to John Kuehl's promotion, 4LEAF is using the delta of $35.00 per hour between the current CBO rate and the new Director rate for this estimate.

Staff will be proposed at time of award and approved by City Management. Tasks will be assigned by City Management with input from 4LEAF management.

Rates for categories not listed in our contracted fee schedule, are provided above.

Estimated Plan Check Fee for Anticipated Project Submission DATE:
4LEAF JOB No.:
4LEAF PM:

ASSIGNMENT:

DATES:

Interim Community Development Director ($170/hr)
Planning Services
PGCC 4-20-22