Pacific Grove City Council
February 1, 2023

Table of Contents

1. RFP Overview

1.1 Introduction and Background

1.2 Purpose of RFP

1.3 Schedule of Events

1.4 RFP Coordinator

1.5 RFP Amendment and Cancellation

1.6 Letter of Intent to Respond

1.7 Questions Pertaining to the RFP

1.8 Public Records Law

1.9 Rights to Submitted Materials

1.10 City Agreements and Insurance Requirements

2. Scope of Work and Specifications

2.1 Overview of the Project

2.2 Desired Outcome

2.3 Performance Requirements

2.3.1 User Fee Study

2.3.2 Development Impact Fee Study

2.3.3 Cost Allocation Plan

3. Proposal Submission Requirements

3.1 General Instructions

3.2 Proposal Format

3.2.1 Transmittal Letter

3.2.2 Table of Contents

3.2.3 Executive Summary

3.2.4 Company Information

3.2.5 Company Background

3.2.6 Statement of Qualifications

3.2.7 Key Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach

3.2.8 Training

3.2.9 Ongoing Support

3.2.10 References

3.2.11 Pricing

3.2.12 Proposed Legal Agreement

3.2.13 Additional Information

4. Proposal Evaluation

5. General Condition

5.1 General Conditions

5.2 Reference Checks

5.3 Changes to RFP

5.4 Submittal Address
City of Pacific Grove

1. RFP Overview

1.1 Introduction and Background
The City of Pacific Grove is a Charter City known for small-town hospitality and friendliness. It is run by a council-manager form of government. The major operating departments of the City are: City Manager, Administrative Services, Community Development, Public Works, Police, Fire, Recreation and the Library. The City population is 15,545 and it is approximately 2.86 square miles. The City shares borders with the City of Monterey, the Pacific Ocean, and the Del Monte Forest.

1.2 Purpose of RFP
The purpose for the City of Pacific Grove’s request for proposal is to identify and select a vendor with a proven record of accomplishment in developing Comprehensive Fee Schedules, Development Impact Fees, and Cost Allocation Plans. In 2018, the City worked with a consultant to develop a Comprehensive Fee Study and a Cost Allocation Plan. While all City fees were evaluated, the Building Department Fees were only partially reviewed due to a shared-agreement with another City. The City would like to review all existing fees, as well as evaluate the Building Department Fees as part of this study. All City fees have been updated annually based on the CPI.

The City has not undertaken a Development Impact Fee Study; or the current City staff is not aware of a previous study. The Study would be used to assess a variety of development impact fees on new development to assist in mitigating City-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities. The City’s impact fee program must comply with all relevant sections of the Government Code.

The City Council has made the Comprehensive Fee Study and the Development Impact Fee portion of this proposal a City Council Priority. Depending on costs and perceived benefit, the City may award a contract in this fiscal year for one or all three of the studies. An emphasis will be placed on the Comprehensive Fee Study and the Development Impact Fees.

1.3 Schedule of Events
The RFP schedule of events identifies the City’s best estimate of the schedule that will be followed.

RFP Event Date/Time
RFP Issued September 1, 2022
Deadline for Written Questions September 15,2022 at 4:30 pm Deadline for Letter of Intent to Respond September 15,2022 at 4:30 pm City Issues Response to Written Questions September 22, 2022 Deadline for Submitting a Proposal September 30,2022 at 4:30 pm City Evaluation of Proposals October 3 -7, 2022
Estimated time when City Determines Finalist October 10, 2022 Contract Awarded October 19, 2022
The City reserves the right to adjust this schedule as it deems necessary.

City of Pacific Grove

1.4 RFP Coordinator
All communications concerning this RFP must be submitted in an e-mail to the RFP Coordinator, Lori Frati, Management Analyst. The RFP Coordinator will be the sole point of contact for this RFP. The coordinator can be reached via email at [email protected].

1.5 RFP Amendment and Cancellation
The City reserves the unilateral right to amend this RFP in writing at any time. The City also reserves the right to cancel or reissue all or any part of the RFP at its sole discretion. This information will be posted to the City’s website. If an amendment is issued, it will also be provided to all vendors who have submitted a Letter of Intent to Respond.

1.6 Letter of Intent to Respond
Vendors who anticipate submitting a proposal should submit an email indicating a vendor's intent to respond to this RFP. The letter of intent should be emailed to the RFP Coordinator. The subject line should read, “Company Name – Letter of Intent to Respond”. The following information should be included in the Letter of Intent to Respond:
• Name of Vendor
• Vendor’s Address
• Vendor’s Contact Person
• Contact Person’s Telephone Number & E-mail Address
• Name and version of system to be proposed
Submittal of a Letter of Intent to respond, by the specified deadline, is highly desirable for submitting a proposal, and is necessary to ensure a vendor’s receipt of RFP amendments and other communications regarding the RFP. The Letter of Intent does not bind vendors to submitting a proposal. Not submitting a Letter of Intent does not preclude a vendor from submitting a proposal by the required deadline.

1.7 Questions Pertaining to the RFP
All questions pertaining to this RFP must be submitted by e-mail to the RFP contact: Lori Frati, Management Analyst at [email protected]. All vendors who have notified the City of their intent to respond to the RFP will be provided, via e-mail, a copy of all questions submitted as well as the City’s response.

1.8 Public Records Law
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250 and following, public records may be inspected and examined by anyone desiring to do so, at a reasonable time, under reasonable conditions, and under supervision by the custodian of the public record. All submitted proposals are subject to the California Public Records Act, and may be determined to be public records subject to disclosure, even if the vendor claims confidential treatment. The City will disclose public records as required under the California Public Records Act.

City of Pacific Grove

1.9 Rights to Submitted Materials
All Proposals and related correspondence, reports, charges, schedules, exhibits and other documentation submitted with this RFP will become property of the City and a matter of public record.

All documents submitted in response to this request will be subject to disclosure if requested by a member of the public. There are a very limited number of narrow exceptions to these disclosure requirements.

1.10 City Agreements and Insurance Requirements
The successful proposer(s) will be required to sign a contract with the City relating to the work to be performed. Once selected, the proposer must procure and maintain insurance in accordance with the City’s insurance requirements for the duration of the contract. The cost of this insurance is the proposer’s responsibility.

2. Scope of Work and Specifications

2.1 Overview of the Project
The City of Pacific Grove is interested in engaging a consultant to work with staff to prepare a Comprehensive Fee Study, Development Impact Fee Study, and a Cost Allocation Plan (Projects).

The contract may be awarded for one or all of the studies.

The consultant will ensure that all project documents are both accurate and appropriate for the City’s current needs, and work with City staff on strategies to maximize cost recovery. General steps for each individual Project would include:

2.1.1 Work with staff to define the purpose, uses, and goals of each Study or Plan.

2.1.2 Meet with staff and conduct interviews to gain an understanding of the City’s practices and operations.

2.1.3 Review any existing documentation related to fees or the cost allocation plan

2.1.4 Provide any suggestions or strategies to improve cost recovery levels, and recommend any new fees, if necessary

2.1.5 Offer assisting in developing fee modification strategies that incentivize local policy goals

2.1.6 Develop and present draft a final report for City staff to review

2.1.7 Provide staff will worksheets to support the components in the final plan in an excel or editable format, as well as any training on how to update any schedules that need to be revisited annually or until the next study

2.1.8 Produce a final written report based on specific project needs, which could include comparison with similar organizations
City of Pacific Grove

2.1.9 Present the information related to the User Fee Study and/or the Development Impact Fee to the City Council at a City Council Meeting.

Additional specifics related to individual plans will be listed in the Performance Specifications of this document.

2.2 Desired Outcome
The desired outcome would be to receive a report that will be used to establish fees and allocate percentages/rates that support the full cost recovery of services; and a Development Impact Fee study that assists in mitigating city-wide impacts on public improvements, public services, and community amenities. Individual Performance requirements for each study are listed below:

2.3 Performance Requirements

2.3.1 User Fee Study
Project tasks shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. If the consultant feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the consultant’s proposal.

2.3.1.1 Work and meet with City staff to refine the project scope, purpose, uses and goals of the City’s User Fee Study to ensure that the study will be both accurate and appropriate to the City’s needs. Review project schedule and answer any questions pertaining to the successful development of the Study.

2.3.1.2 Conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s existing fees. For a list of City fees, see the attached “Exhibit A” Adopted Master Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2022-23”, which is adopted annually and is effective July 1. Identify the total cost of providing each City service and in a manner that is consistent with all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates and charges by public entities.

2.3.1.3 Compare service costs with existing recovery levels. This should include any service areas where the City is currently charging for services as well as areas where the City, perhaps, should charge in light of the City’s practices, or the practices of similar or neighboring cities. Include (as allowed by statutes/laws/rules/regulations) practices for deferral and/or forgiveness of fees and/or substitution of public services/facilities in lieu of fees for privately funded and City projects with public benefit. Include a comparison of current City practices and similar practices of similar or neighboring cities.

2.3.1.4 Recommend appropriate fees and charges based on your analysis together with the appropriate subsidy percentage for those fees where full cost recovery may be unrealistic (e.g. senior services). Consider the cost of pre-application and postapplication meetings to mitigate project problems, assist project proponents to prepare the application, emergency response cost recovery such as inspection costs after fires City of Pacific Grove

and/or acts of god and how those costs can be recovered, either on a permit specific basis or as an overall percentage applied to permit fees.

2.3.1.5 Prepare a report that identifies each service, its full cost, recommended and current cost recovery levels. The report should also identify the direct cost, the indirect cost, and the overhead cost for each service; and provide a model for adjusting these fees for the City’s current and future needs.

2.3.1.6 Prepare a report that identifies the present scope performed under the fee, the proposed scope performed under the recommended fee, present fees, recommended fees, percentage change, cost recovery percentage, revenue impact; and fee comparison with other Monterey County cities or other California cities that are comparable to Pacific Grove. A survey comparison of fees with similar cities is for information only.

2.3.1.7 Report on other matters that come to your attention in the course of your evaluation that in your professional opinion the City should consider.

2.3.1.8 Present your study to the City’s management group and make necessary adjustments as requested.

2.3.1.9 Prepare and participate in presenting the plan to interested external parties (public meetings).

2.3.1.10 Assist the Administrative Services Department in presenting the plan to the City Council.

2.3.1.11 Provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive study, including related schedules and cost documentation in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs. Develop a model for adjusting fees to include the addition of hypothetical service area information for future service enhancements, and the ability to calculate the estimated costs of providing the service under consideration (Scenario and “what if” analyses).

2.3.1.12 Provide on-site training to enable staff to update fee

2.3.1.13 Prepare a final fee study report in a single PDF file of the plan that can be made available to City staff. Any master fee schedule revisions developed shall be made available to the City electronically, providing the ability to add or delete and/or update information as needed.

2.3.1.14 Consult with City staff should it become necessary to defend the City’s User Fees as a result of any legal or other challenge.

City of Pacific Grove

2.3.2 Development Impact Fee Study
The City assesses a variety of cost recovery-based fees. The consultant (or consultants) will conduct a comprehensive update of the nexus analysis for these fees and explore adding development impact fees as appropriate. The City’s fees must comply with any applicable state and federal law including but not limited to the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq., also known as Assembly Bill 1600).

Project tasks shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. If the consultant feels that additional tasks are warranted, they must be clearly identified in the consultant’s proposal.

2.3.2.1 Develop a comprehensive impact fee study in alignment with broad policies to adequately facilitate desired development within the City while supporting the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

2.3.2.2 Conduct a comprehensive Development Impact Study in alignment with updated longrange planning policies to complement development within the City and meet policy objectives.

2.3.2.3 The consultant (or consultants) will be responsible for preparing background reports as well as technical reports documenting the study results for each fee.

2.3.2.4 Provide an overview of development impact fees and in-lieu fees in neighboring and/or similar-sized cities as a means of comparison.

2.3.2.5 Provide City staff with an interactive tool that will ensure predictable and intuitive fees that are easily accessible and understandable to customers interested in calculating fees on their own for a particular type of project

2.3.2.6 Prepare and participate in presenting the plan to interested external parties (public meetings).

2.3.3 Cost Allocation Plan
Develop a Full Cost Allocation Model for calculating the full costs of providing each city service.

The requirements of the model shall allow for the following:

2.3.3.1 Allow for Additions, revisions or removal of direct and overhead costs so that the cost allocation plan can be easily adapted to a range of activities both simple and complex.

2.3.3.2 Identify overhead rates that can be used in the calculation of billable hourly rates for user fees, and reimbursements from other governmental agencies.

2.3.3.3 Provide the ability of the City to continuously update the model and overhead cost allocation plan easily from year to year as the organization changes.

City of Pacific Grove

2.3.3.4 Identify hypothetical service area information for future service enhancements, and the ability to calculate the estimated cost of providing the service under consideration.

2.3.3.5 Comply with Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; as part of the cost allocation plan proposal, please provide the following:
a) Provide a Methodology appropriate for the calculation and allocation of an overhead cost rate complying with Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 225, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments. b) Prepare a study of each program with overhead costs that are borne in whole or in part by the General Fund that can receive overhead cost for reimbursement from State and Federal governments and/or other sources.

2.3.3.6 Present the cost allocation plan to the City’s management group and make necessary adjustments as requested.

2.3.3.7 Provide the City with an electronic copy of the final comprehensive review, including related schedules and cost determination in a format that can be edited and updated by City staff to accommodate changes in the organization or changes in costs.

2.3.3.8 Consult with the City staff should the need arise to defend the cost allocation plan as a result of audits or other challenges.
3 Proposal Submission Requirements

3.1 General Instructions
Proposals should provide a straightforward, concise description of the vendor’s company, qualifications, proposed solution, and capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP.

Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity of content.

Proposals should be organized consistent with the outline provided in this section of the RFP.

Vendors must follow all formats and address all portions of the RFP set forth herein providing all information requested.

Submittals must be received no later than September 30, 2022. Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered.

3.2 Proposal Format
Proposals must be structured, presented, and labeled in the following manner:
• Transmittal Letter
• Table of Contents
City of Pacific Grove

• Executive Summary
• Company Information
• Company Background
• Statement of Qualifications
• Implementation and Development Approach
• Training
• Ongoing Support
• References
• Pricing for each study or any discounts associated with conducting all three studies/plans.

All pricing must be placed in a sealed envelope.
• Proposed Legal Agreement(s)
• Additional Information
Details of information that shall be included in each response are listed in Sections 3.2.1 – 3.2.13.

Failure to follow the specified format, to label the responses correctly, or to address all the subsections may result in the rejection of the Proposal.

3.2.1 Transmittal Letter
The proposal must provide a written transmittal of the proposal in the form of a standard business letter. The Transmittal Letter will reference and respond to each of the following bulleted items. • Signature of a company officer empowered to bind the vendor to the provisions of this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to it.
• A high-level statement of the vendor’s credentials to deliver the services sought under the RFP.
• A statement indicating the proposal remains valid for at least 90 days. • A statement that the vendor or any individual who will perform work for the vendor is free of any conflict of interest (e.g., employment by the City.)

3.2.2 Table of Contents
All pages are to be numbered and the table of contents should identify each major section.

City of Pacific Grove

3.2.3 Executive Summary
This section of the proposal should provide a concise synopsis of vendor’s proposal and credentials to deliver the services sought under the RFP. In addition, it should explain how the vendor’s proposal will differentiate itself from other consultant solutions and the reasons the City should select the vendor’s proposal. This may include a list of the unique attributes or experience that gives the vendor a competitive edge.

3.2.4 Company Information
This section of the proposal must include the following company information:
• Provide the legal entity name, Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN), and form of business (i.e. Corporation, LLC, etc.).
• Identify if the vendor is a subsidiary of a larger company. If so, whom? • Provide a primary contact name, address, phone number, and email address. • Identify the location of company headquarters and offices, which will support the implementation.
• Identify the location, hours of operation, and contact information of ongoing maintenance and support staff.
• Provide the current number of employees at the company. • Provide the current number of employees dedicated to the solution you are proposing. • Identify all subcontractors and associated scope of work. • List the company’s Pacific Grove business license number, or statement of understanding that a business license must be purchased prior to doing business with City. • Identify any pending litigation against the vendor.
• Identify if vendor has filed any bankruptcy or insolvency processing in the last 10 years. • Identify any mergers, acquisitions, or sales of the vendor company within the last five years (if so, an explanation providing relevant details).

3.2.5 Company Background
This section should identify the following:
• A description of the Vendor’s background, nature of business and organizational history. • A statement of how long the Vendor has been providing the services that are being proposed and required by this RFP.
• Disclose the Vendor’s annual company revenues and profit for the last three company fiscal years. It is acceptable to include this information as an appendix in the proposal.

City of Pacific Grove

3.2.6 Company Qualifications
In this section of proposal, the Vendor should identify company and staff qualifications and experience in implementing the proposed studies or plans. More specifically, this section should identify the following:
• Describe your experience in providing comprehensive fee studies, development impact fee studies, and cost allocation plans; especially for municipalitiessimilar in size to Pacific Grove. • Identify some examples of your existing client base including the number of clients you provided the services being proposed here.

3.2.7 Key Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach In this section the vendor should address the following:
• Provide a project organization chart highlighting the key staff who will be assigned to accomplish the work and any related bios for the project manager and key personnel • Describe your implementation methodology and approach that is relevant to one or all studies.

This includes the tools and techniques that will be used and methodologies that the firm will employ.
• Outline strategies and options that will result in the development and recommendations that are practical to the City of Pacific Grove, meaning that the recommendations must not exceed the City’s ability to implement and properly utilize them. • Describe the roles and responsibilities of both the City and vendor staff during each phase of implementation. In addition, provide an estimated level of effort and skillset required for the City staff during implementation.
• Provide a project schedule that includes all tasks, deliverables, milestones, and resources required. The City seeks a detailed understanding of the work plan that will be followed to ensure success.

Please also indicate any lead time that is needed before a company representative can begin working on the study.
• Describe your validation process for ensuring all information is accurate and your criteria for success. Also, outline the responsibilities of City staff during the final validation and acceptance process.

3.2.8 Training
• Provide an overview of any training that would be needed to understand the methodology related to the studies. The goal would be to allow City staff to understand the how any fees or allocations were derived.

City of Pacific Grove

• If applicable, describe your training strategy/plan that includes current and future employees of City in any updates to the underlying calculations with the plans or studies during periods when formal studies are not conducted.

3.2.9 Ongoing Support
Please provide an overview of any support that you firm will offer in relation to follow-up questions regarding the completed studies.

3.2.10 References
The vendor must provide at least five references. At least three of the references should be for comprehensive fee studies, development impact fees, and cost allocation plans in the last three years. The City prefers references from local government agencies with similar demographics. For each reference, vendor should provide the following information:
o Entity name
o Customer contact information (name, title, phone, and email) o Scope of work performed identifying the services provided and solutions implemented o Project start and end dates

3.2.11 Pricing
The City is seeking a clear and comprehensive understanding of all costs associated with the project. This would include development of the studies, on-going training, and travel. The City may entertain remote meetings, however an on-site presentation may be required by the City Council.

All pricing shall be submitted in a separate sealed envelope.

Each individual study or plan shall be priced separately, along with any discounts identified if the City moves forward with all three studies.

3.2.12 Proposed Legal Agreement
It is recognized that the formal basis of any agreement between the City and the vendor is a contract rather than a proposal. The City’s standard contract is included in Exhibit B. While the City does not typically modify the contract terms, the Vendor may include a draft of any proposed modifications to the City’s standard contract. If the Vendor requires an alternate contract, that information must be included with the RFP response.

The proposed legal agreement(s) may serve as the basis for contract negotiations between the City and the selected vendor(s) or the City may elect to use its own agreement as the basis.

City of Pacific Grove

3.2.13 Additional Information
In this section, the vendors are required to provide the following materials:
• Example of a development impact fee study for similar City • Any training material for on-going support. The City is typically planning to update all studies on five-year intervals; however this could be subject to change. • If the company offers a complimentary service to enhance the requested studies, please include any informational material, as well as the costs. Please note that these documents are not required for this proposal; however it is requested for potential consideration and future studies.
4 Proposal Evaluations
After the proposals are received, the City shall review and evaluate them for responsiveness to the RFP in order to determine whether the proposer possesses the qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. The City may also investigate qualifications of all proposers to whom the award is contemplated, and the City may request clarifications of proposals directly from one or more proposers.

In reviewing the proposals, the City will consider the following:
• The qualifications (including education, training, licenses, experience and past performance) of the proposer and its agents, employees and sub-consultants in completing projects of a similar type, size and complexity.
• The feasibility of the proposal based upon the methodology of the proposed scope of services to meet the City’s needs, the quality of services proposed, and the reasonableness of the total project costs and of the proposed time period over which the work will be completed.
• Understanding of the work to be completed based upon the clarity of the proposal and responsiveness to this RFP.
• Quality, clarity, completeness, and responsiveness of proposal. • Demonstrated ability to work in a cooperative and collaborative manner with clients. • Proposed timeline.
• Anticipated value and price.
• Perceived risk or lack of risk
• Company financial stability.
• References for each of the primary product(s) and service(s) proposed • Reasonableness of any proposed adjustments to the City’s contracts) • Ability to negotiate and execute a contract in a timely manner.

City of Pacific Grove

The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to request clarifications of proposals or to conduct discussions for the purpose of clarification with any or all vendors. The purpose of any such discussions shall be to ensure full understanding of the proposal. Discussions shall be limited to specific sections of the proposal identified by the City and, if held, shall be after initial evaluation of proposals are complete. If clarifications are made as a result of such discussion, the vendor shall put such clarifications in writing.
5 General Terms and Conditions

5.1 General Conditions
• The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality, to request interviews of Contractor(s) prior to award and to select and negotiate the Contract services in the best interest of the City.
• The City reserves the right to accept all or part of any proposal, and to negotiate a contract for services and cost with the selected Contractor.
• The Contractor shall provide all necessary personnel, materials and equipment to perform and complete all work under this proposal.
• The Contractor shall be unbiased and vendor neutral.
• Unless otherwise stated, invoices are to be submitted to the Administrative Services Department upon delivery of service to the City. The invoice must include an itemization of all services provided, including unit list price, net price, extensions total amount(s) due, and amounts previously paid.
• Unless otherwise stated, payment will be made within thirty (30) days of the completion of the service, in an acceptable fashion, to the City, and receipt of invoice, whichever is later. • The contract for the services described in the RFP should not be considered exclusive. As deemed necessary, the City reserves the right to obtain these services from any other vendor. • Neither party shall be liable for any inability to perform its obligations under any subsequent agreement due to war, riot, insurrection, civil commotion, fire, flood, earthquake, storm or other act of nature.
• Notification of the parties shall be considered to have been constructively received when it is mailed via the United States Postal Service, e-mailed, or delivered in hand to the parties as stated in the contract.
• Proposal shall also mean quotation, bid, offer, qualification/experience statement, and services. Proposers shall also mean vendors, proposer’s, bidders, or any person or firm responding to a Request for Information.

City of Pacific Grove

• The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of 60 days for exam and comparison.
• All contracts entered into by the City of Pacific Grove shall be governed by the Laws of the State of California. Any disputes shall be resolved within the venue of the State of California. • The proposer may submit an alternative proposal or proposals that it believes will also meet the City’s project objectives, but in a different way. In this case, the proposed must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives, and discuss under that circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).

5.2 Reference Checks
The City of Pacific Grove reserves the right to contact any reference, or any client listed in the documents for information which may be helpful to the City in evaluating the Contractor’s performance on previous assignments.

5.3 Changes to RFP
Changes to the RFP will be e-mailed to all vendors that submitted a letter of intent to respond. Such changes become an integral part of the RFP for incorporation into any contract awarded pursuant to the RFP.

5.4 Submittal Address
Send proposals to Lori Frati, Management Analyst at [email protected] or mail to:

City of Pacific Grove
Administrative Services Department
Attn: Lori Frati, Management Analyst
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
If submitting by mail, please ensure “title of RFP” is written in the lower left-hand corner of the envelope. Three bound copies, plus one electronic file shall be submitted.

Proposals must be complete and submitted by the due date. Late submissions or delivery via facsimile will not be considered. The City assumes no responsibility for delays caused by delivery service.

Postmarking by the due date will not substitute for actual receipt.

Proposal to Develop a Comprehensive User Fee
Study, Development Impact Fee Study, and Cost
Allocation Plan

PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA
September 30, 2022

EXHIBIT E
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213 • San Mateo, CA 94402 • 650.858.0507 SF Bay Area (Headquarters), Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Irvine, Portland, St. Louis September 30, 2022
Lori Frati, Management Analyst
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Dear Ms. Frati:

The Matrix Consulting Group is pleased to have this opportunity to submit a proposal to develop a Comprehensive User Fee Study, Development Impact Fee Study, and Cost Allocation Plan for the City of Pacific Grove. The Matrix Consulting Group stands out from other firms for the following reasons:
• Experience in cost allocation and cost of service studies: Our firm and team have conducted 250+ cost of service studies for municipalities over the last 20 years across the United States, with recent Northern California clients including Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Mill Valley, San Mateo, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sonoma, Sunnyvale, and South San Francisco.
• Experience with the City of Pacific Grove: In 2018, our firm worked with the City to develop a Comprehensive User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. Our proposed project executive and project manager were both members of that project team. • Timeliness of products and transfer of knowledge: We are committed to ensuring that all client deadlines are met and that along with providing defensible work products, there is a transfer of the intangible knowledge and recommendations associated with enhancing revenue recovery.

I am the firm’s president, authorized to negotiate on the firm’s behalf and bind it contractually.

Courtney Ramos, a vice president and project executive, can provide clarifications on this proposal. I confirm our proposal is valid for 90 days and that the Matrix Consulting Group is free of any conflict of interest regarding this engagement. Ms. Ramos and I can be reached at the address and phone number listed below, or via email at [email protected] and [email protected].

Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group
matrix
consulting group
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 1
2 Company Information 2
3 Company Background 4
4 Company Qualifications 5
5 Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach 12 6 Training 35
7 Ongoing Support 36
8 References 37
9 Pricing 38
10 Proposed Legal Agreement 39
11 Additional Information 40
12 Appendices 41
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 1
1 Executive Summary
The Matrix Consulting Group appreciates this opportunity to submit a proposal to conduct User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies. The following points provide an overview of the desired scope of work. • A User Fee Study will document direct and indirect costs associated with feebased services. • A Development Impact Fee Study will serve to identify the appropriate portion of costs that should be shared between existing residents and new development within the community.
• The development of Cost Allocation Plans will identify indirect costs associated with all City funds, Departments, and Services.

The results of this engagement will enable the City to develop an understanding of the full cost incurred to the General Fund in support of funds and departments, establish the full cost of providing fee-related services, and provide options for increased cost recovery.

Our project team will work with City staff to complete the requested analysis within a six (6) month timeframe and provide Excel-based models that will allow for future updates.

No other firm has a better understanding of how public organizations operate, or how to help them thrive. The following table provides a sampling of jurisdictions to which we have provided similar services:

Jurisdiction Cost Allocation User Fee Impact Fees
Adelanto, CA X X X
Asheville, NC X
Austin, TX X
Cape Coral, FL X
Champaign, IL X X
Citrus Heights, CA X X
Cupertino, CA X X
Dallas, TX X X
Daly City, CA X X
Denton, TX X X
Dixon, CA X X
Downey, CA X X X
Elk Grove, CA X X
Fairfield, CA X
Fort Lauderdale, FL X X
Garland, TX
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 2
Jurisdiction Cost Allocation User Fee Impact Fees
Hercules, CA X
Juneau, AK X
Livermore, CA X X
Long Beach, CA X
Los Altos Hills, CA X X X
Manhattan Beach, CA X X
Maui County, HI X X
Menifee, CA X X X
Miami Beach, FL X
Millbrae, CA X X
Orange, CA X X
Redwood City, CA X X
Richland, WA
San Bernardino County, CA X
San Mateo, CA X X X
Santa Clara, CA X X
South San Francisco, CA X X X
Stockton, CA X
Sunnyvale, CA X
Vacaville, CA X X
Walnut, CA X X
As evidenced by the table, the Matrix Consulting Group has worked with a variety of municipalities across the U.S. for these services, especially in California and the Bay Area (bolded).

Our firm has assigned our Financial Services Vice President and Principal as the Project Executive (Courtney Ramos). Ms. Ramos has led all financial services over the past 15 years conducted by the firm. Additionally, our proposed Project Manager (Khushboo Ingle) is trained in Cost Allocation Principles and Revenue Enhancement Best Practices.

This team worked with the City on the previous cost allocation plan and user fee study and will ensure that all reports are developed based upon best practices, industry trends, and are legally defensible.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 3
2 Company Information
This section of our proposal includes information requested by the City of Pacific Grove in RFP Section 3.2.4.

1. Provide the legal entity name, Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN), and form of business (i.e. Corporation, LLC, etc.).

The Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd. is a C-Corporation registered in California. Our FEIN is 05-0545979.

2. Identify if the vendor is a subsidiary of a larger company. If so, whom? We are not a subsidiary of a larger company.

3. Provide a primary contact name, address, phone number, and email address.

Richard Brady, President, and Courtney Ramos, Vice President and Project Executive, can be reached via email at [email protected] and [email protected] or at the address and telephone number below.

Matrix Consulting Group, Ltd.
1650 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 213
San Mateo, CA 94402
650-858-0507

4. Identify the location of company headquarters and offices, which will support the implementation.

Our project executive is in our headquarters office in San Mateo, while our project manager is in our Irvine office.

5. Identify the location, hours of operation, and contact information of ongoing maintenance and support staff.

For ongoing support, the City can contact Richard Brady and/or Courtney Ramos Monday – Friday, 8am – 5pm, at the emails, address, and telephone number listed above.

6. Provide the current number of employees at the company.

Our firm currently has 24 full-time and three part-time employees.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 4

7. Provide the current number of employees dedicated to the solution you are proposing.

The solution we are proposing will be supported by four full-time staff, introduced in the Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach section of this proposal.

8. Identify all subcontractors and associated scope of work.

We will not be using subcontractors for any of the requested scopes of work.

9. List the company’s Pacific Grove business license number, or statement of understanding that a business license must be purchased prior to doing business with City.

We do not have an active business license with the City, but should we be the successful vendor, we will obtain one during contract execution. It should be noted that we have had one in the past associated with prior projects.

10. Identify any pending litigation against the vendor.

Neither the firm nor any member of the proposed project team is involved in any pending litigation.

11. Identify if vendor has filed any bankruptcy or insolvency processing in the last 10 years.

The Matrix Consulting Group has been financially sound since its inception in 2003. We are not currently, nor have we ever been, involved in any bankruptcy or insolvency process.

12. Identify any mergers, acquisitions, or sales of the vendor company within the last five years (if so, an explanation providing relevant details).

The Matrix Consulting Group has not been a party to any mergers, acquisitions, or sales of our firm within the last five years.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 5
3 Company Background
This section of our proposal includes a description of our background and history, including how long we have been providing services that are being proposed by the City and relevant financial information.
1 Introduction to the Matrix Consulting Group
The Matrix Consulting Group specializes in providing analytical services to local governments to assist them in providing highly responsive, efficient, and effective services to their residents. Our firm’s history and composition are summarized below:
• Since our founding in 2002, we have worked with over 1,500 government agencies, conducting cost of service and management studies providing recommendations relating to operations, improvements, and cost recovery. • Incorporated in California, with headquarters in San Mateo, and offices in 11 other states, we now have 24 full-time and three-part time highly experienced management consultants who specialize in the analysis of local government functions encompassing the entire spectrum of critical operational areas. • The market and service focus of the Matrix Consulting Group has always been financial, management, staffing and operations analysis of local government. The following outlines the core services provided by our firm:

Administrative (HR, Finance, IT) Fire and EMS
Community Development Fleet Management
Corrections and Justice Law Enforcement
Emergency Communications Parks, Recreation, and Libraries Financial Services Public Works and Utilities
No other firm has a better understanding of how public organizations operate, or how to help them thrive.
2 Financial Information
The Matrix Consulting Group has been financially sound since its inception. As a small firm we are not required to have audited financials, however, we do use a local certified public accounting firm to review our books and help in filing annual tax documents. We have included a table in the Appendices section that provides our profit and loss statement for the last three calendar years.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 6
4 Company Qualifications
This section of our proposal identifies company and staff qualifications and experience in implementing the studies or plans requested by the City. 1 Cost Allocation Plan Experience
Our firm has extensive experience developing Full Cost and OMB compliant Cost Allocation Plans, as well as Indirect Cost Rate Proposals for various municipal organizations across the United States. Whether we are working with large cities, small towns, special districts, or individual departments, our goal is to document and define the services being provided, and accurately allocate costs to all beneficiaries. The following points highlight our experience with developing cost allocation processes and metrics:
• Administrative Functions: Our firm has extensive experience in evaluating processes and functions associated with City Clerk, Finance, Human Resources, and Purchasing. From basic tasks and responsibilities to process improvement and oversight controls, our project teams can:
- Identify core service functions, such as payroll, employee benefits, budget preparation, agenda and commission support.
- Review current data metrics, and work with staff to ensure resulting allocations are appropriate, fair, and equitable.
- Recognize services that are not in direct support of departments, including business licenses and elections, and ensure they are accurately identified, but not further allocated.

Our project teams understand the core services associated with administrative functions, as well as the time associated with process completion, and are adept at helping staff determine daily, weekly, monthly, or annual time spent on a task.

These assumptions form the core basis of a cost allocation plan, and should be defensible not only through documentation, but also by City staff. • Governmental Functions: The Matrix Consulting Group has worked with and been a part of managerial studies relating to City Manager and Legal services.

Additionally, we have extensive experience working with, and presenting to various boards, councils, and subcommittees. Our understanding of the various types of services provided allow our project teams to assess what services are best for allocation, including:

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 7
- Categorizing services and support that benefit the City as an organization, such as contract negotiation, and approval of internal policies. - Identifying services that benefit the City economically, such as lobbying, and economic development, which should not be allocated.

Our team understands how these costs can and should be treated in both a Full Cost Plan and OMB compliant plan, including making staff aware of common practices, as well as aggressive allocation options.
• Internal Services: The Matrix Consulting Group has significant experience evaluating services and functions associated with Facilities Maintenance, Fleet Services, and Information Technology. While these services can be part of the general fund or internal services, their allocation is important when trying to understand the indirect costs associated with any Fund, Department, or Program.

Our project teams work with these departments to:
- Review existing allocation processes and metrics to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations.
- Determine if newer metrics, or metric alterations could provide more accurate allocations.

Our project team is committed to ensuring that all cost centers being allocated by our clients comply with state and local laws, use fair and equitable allocation metrics, and are documented and defensible. The following table provides a sampling of California jurisdictions for whom we have provided similar services within the last five years, including the types of services provided to each jurisdiction, relevant to the requested scope of services:

Jurisdiction Full Cost OMB ISF Indirect Rates Ann. Plan Adelanto, CA X
Citrus Heights, CA X X X
Cupertino, CA X X
Dixon, CA X X X
Downey, CA X X X
Elk Grove, CA X X X X
Fairfield, CA X X
Hercules, CA X X X
Los Altos Hills, CA X
Livermore, CA X X X X
Manhattan Beach, CA X X X X
Millbrae, CA X X X
Pacific Grove, CA X X
Port of Long Beach, CA X X
Redwood City, CA X X X
Resource Cons. Dist. of Santa Cruz County X X X X
Sacramento Regional Transit, CA X X X
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 8
Jurisdiction Full Cost OMB ISF Indirect Rates Ann. Plan San Mateo, CA X X X X
San Mateo Resource Cons. District X X X
Santa Clara, CA X X X X
South San Francisco, CA X X X
Sunnyvale, CA X X X
Services provided to the above listed clients were delivered by our proposed project executive and project manager out of our San Mateo (headquarters) Irvine, CA offices. 2 Comprehensive User Fee Study Experience
Our firm has extensive experience conducting comprehensive user fee studies for a variety of municipal organizations and departments. When conducting comprehensive user fee studies, the focus is often on Community Development (building, planning, and engineering) and Parks and Recreation services. The following points highlight our experience in these areas:
• Community Development: Our firm has extensive experience in evaluating development review permitting functions for Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Prevention. From the basic process steps for submitting, reviewing, inspecting, and approving applications and permits to development of processes, procedures, and cost recovery goals, our project teams can address topics as:
- The best metric for assessing fees, such as building valuation, square footage, construction estimate, or number of fixtures.
- Appropriate deposit amounts, guidelines, and processes to ensure actual cost recovery is achieved.
- Setting fees at levels that both recover costs but are not prohibitive to the community.
- Cost recovery and implementation options for support services including General Plan Updates, Technology Fees, GIS, etc.

Beyond understanding processes and assessing time estimates provided, our project teams are aware of the cross-departmental support associated with application and permit services. These costs are included in the full cost calculation and can be expressed as part of the established fee or pulled out as a separate fee.
• Parks and Recreation: The Matrix Consulting Group has worked with every type of recreation function, including traditional parks and recreation, libraries, and open space preserves. Our experience spans master and strategic planning, park Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 9
condition assessments, and program staffing and cost recovery. Our project teams are well versed in the areas that most impact cost recovery, including:
- The best use of a tiered recovery approach, such as resident versus nonresident, or profit versus non-profit. - Setting fees according to the cost recovery pyramid to ensure that premium services have a higher cost recovery.

The goal in reviewing parks and recreation costs for service, is to ensure that fees and rates are set at a level that allows the City to continue to serve the community in a manner consistent with current goals and commitments.

Our firm also has extensive experience in calculating cost of services for administrative functions such as Finance and City Clerk, as well as public safety services relating to Police, Fire Prevention, and EMS. The following table includes a sampling of California clients over the last five (5) years for whom we have provided similar scopes of service:

Jurisdiction
Planning
Fees
Building
Fees
Engineering
Fees
Fire
Prev.

Fees
Admin
Fees
Utility
Fees
Police
Fees
Recreation
Fees
Adelanto, CA X X X X X
Capitola, CA X X X X
Citrus Heights, CA X X X X X X
Commerce, CA X
Cosumnes CSD, CA X
Cupertino, CA X X X X
Dixon, CA X X X X X X
Downey, CA X X X X X X X X
Elk Grove, CA X X X
Livermore, CA X X X X
Los Altos Hills, CA X X X X
Manhattan Beach, CA X X X X X X X X
Millbrae, CA X X X X X X
Mill Valley, CA X X X X X X
Montebello, CA X X X X X X X X
Orange, CA X X X X X X X X
Pacific Grove, CA X X X X X X
Redwood City, CA X X X X X X X X
San Bernardino, CA X X
SB County FPD, CA X
San Mateo, CA X X X
Santa Clara, CA X X X X X X X X
South Pasadena, CA X X X X X X X
So. San Francisco, CA X X X X X X X X
Stockton, CA X X X X
Vacaville, CA X X X X X X X
Winters, CA X X X X X X X
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 10
Services provided to the above listed clients were delivered by our proposed project executive and project manager out of our San Mateo (headquarters) Irvine, CA offices. 3 DIF Study Experience
The Matrix Consulting Group has experience conducting a variety of cost of service and nexus-based analyses. The primary focus of a Development Impact Fee Study is to ensure that there is a nexus between the fee being assessed and the impact being observed. Additionally, the fee must comply with AB1600, the Mitigation Fee Act, and the newly enacted AB602. The following points highlight some of our key qualifications as it relates to Development Impact Fee Studies:
• AB 1600 / AB 602 Technical Expertise: The proposed project team has received training from Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) as it relates to Best Management Practices for Development Impact Fees. Additionally, the project team has conducted police, fire, public works, parks, libraries, and community center specific and citywide comprehensive Impact Fee studies to ensure compliance with AB1600 and now AB602 requirements. • Industry Standards: The Matrix Consulting Group is aware of the industry standards as it relates to development and implementation of impact fees, including the creation of two separate fee components (cost + admin) as well as utilization of different cost factors (Sq. Ft. vs. Equivalent Dwelling Units). • Policy Development and Reporting Requirements: The project team has worked with clients to develop specific policies as it relates to Development Impact Fees including the option to annually update the fees utilizing the Construction Cost Index (CCI). These policies also include the reporting requirements as it relates to collection of impact fees in a separate fund and disbursement of impact fee funds.

As the points above highlight, the Matrix Consulting Group is very familiar with public sector and local government impact fee programs. Our familiarity ranges from conducting the cost analysis to developing and evaluating the policies and procedures behind the impact fee program. This makes us uniquely qualified to provide the best product to the City. The following table includes a sampling of California clients over the last five (5) years for whom we have provided similar scopes of service:

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 11
Jurisdiction
Gen.

Govt. Fire DIF Police DIF
Parks &
Rec DIF
TIF
DIF
Library
DIF
Other
DIFs
Blythe, CA X
Downey, CA X
Orange, CA X X X X
Los Altos Hills, CA X
Menifee, CA X X X X X X X
Novato FPD, CA X
San Mateo, CA X X X
So. San Francisco, CA X X X X X
Walnut, CA X
Services provided to the above listed clients were delivered by our proposed project executive and project manager out of our San Mateo (headquarters) Irvine, CA offices. 4 Project Team Experience
The Matrix Consulting Group uses a core project team to conduct cost allocation and cost of services studies. This structure ensures that each project has the technical expertise required to adhere to state and federal guidelines regarding cost allocation, as well as generally accepted accounting principles relating to cost accounting. The core team is involved in all meetings and interviews, allowing for information to be disseminated simultaneously. A project organizational chart and summaries of experience of our proposed project team are provided in the Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach section of this proposal.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 12
5 Staffing, Development, and Implementation Approach
This section of our proposal provides details about the project team, our methodology and approach relevant to all studies requested by the City, and a task-by-task plan to complete the work.
1 Project Team Organization and Experience
The following chart outlines the project team, their specific roles, and reporting structure.

The project team being proposed by the Matrix Consulting Group are all full-time employees of our firm. The following table provides a summary of experience of our proposed project team and their roles through the course of this project. Detailed resumes for the Project Executive and Project Manager can be found in the Appendices section.

Ms. Orchard and Ms. Dixson
will coordinate data
collection, support city staff
in data development, and
populate models.

Ms. Ingle will be responsible
for leading interviews,
financial analysis, policy
discussion and development.

Ms. Ramos with be the
primary contact for the
project, providing expertise in
reviewing drafts and
presenting results.

Project oversight and overall
Project approval City of Pacific Grove
Courtney Ramos
Project Executive
Khushboo Ingle
Project Manager
Lauren Orchard
Analyst
Madison Dixson
Analyst
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 13
Courtney Ramos
Vice President,
Project Executive
Experience:
17 years
Ms. Ramos is our Financial Services Practice Leader, who oversees cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her tenure has also included participation in operational audits focusing on organizational / staffing structure enhancements.

Courtney has completed over 250 cost of service studies. Recent clients include Daly City, Redwood City, Hercules, Millbrae, San Mateo, Milpitas, Mill Valley, Sunnyvale, South San Francisco, and Los Altos Hills.

Her role on this project would be to serve as the Project Executive involved in reviewing and presenting results.

Khushboo Ingle
Senior Manager,
Project Manager
Experience:
11 years
Ms. Ingle is a Senior Manager who manages cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her experience with the firm also includes participation in operational audit engagements focusing on organization, staffing, and internal processes.

Khushboo has completed over 150 cost of service studies. Recent clients include Daly City, Redwood City, Millbrae, San Mateo, Milpitas, Sunnyvale, South San Francisco, Hercules, Los Altos Hills, Livermore, Bay Area Air Quality District, and San Mateo County Resource Conservation District.

Her role on this project would be to serve as the Project Manager, involved in leading meetings, developing draft results, and reviewing results.

Lauren Orchard
Sr. Consultant,
Analyst
Experience:
6 years
Ms. Orchard is an analyst who has recently joined our firm to assist our senior staff on cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.

Prior to joining Matrix Consulting Group, Ms. Orchard has had extensive experience in local government. Most recently she served in the position of Economic Development Director for the City of West Fargo, ND.

Her role on this project would be to serve as an Analyst, involved in attending meetings, data input, developing models, and providing support on revenue forecasting.

Madison Dixson
Consultant,
Data Analyst
Experience:
1 year
Ms. Dixson is an analyst who assists our senior staff on cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements.

Ms. Dixson has participated in over 15 cost of service studies. Recent Bay Area clients include Millbrae, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale.

Her role on this project would be to serve as an Analyst, involved in attending meetings, data input, and developing models.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 14
2 Approach
The Matrix Consulting Group works with a wide variety of clients ranging from small towns to major metropolitan cities in over 44 states across the U.S. and in Canada. Every project is unique, but it is managed according to the following essential project approach:

We believe very strongly in the science of our craft, especially as it relates to cost allocation and cost of service. Our firm utilizes quality control techniques including:
• Project Management: Ensuring our projects meet the needs and timelines of our clients are accomplished through the following:
- The project manager and lead analyst develop general and project specific data collection plans and interview guides.
- All project work activities are defined in advance and tied to each project team member, deliverables, the schedule and the budget. - We have frequent client review meetings to discuss the quality and direction of the project through interim deliverables and draft documents. • Numerical Results: Financial analyses are used to develop budgets and projections, and often are subject to public oversight and review. For this reason, our firm ensures data determined quality control through the following:
- Expenditure data used in cost models are tied to budget documents. - Revenue projections developed are based on existing workload and activities and can be reconciled based on quantitative assumptions.

These project management approaches have resulted in all projects being delivered at a high level of quality, on time and on budget.

Understanding
City specific
financial data
Working
Collaboratively
wtih City Staff
through
meetings and
workshops
Applying
industry
standards, best
management
practices, and
technical
expertise for fee
and cost
allocation
application
Calculating
Defensible
Results with
Buy-in from
internal and
external
stakeholders
Providing
recommendations
and transferring
knowledge and
work products to
City staff for
sccessful project
implementation
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 15
3 Detailed Task Plan and Project Schedule
The City of Pacific Grove is requesting three scopes of work: 1) Cost Allocation Plan; 2) Comprehensive User Fee Study; 3) Development Impact Fee Study. These three scopes of work can be conducted concurrently as there are economies of scale that can be achieved by conducting them in this way. The following subsections outline the tasks broken out by Project-Wide Tasks, Cost Allocation Plan Tasks, Comprehensive User Fee Study Tasks, Development Impact Fee Study Tasks.

Project-Wide Tasks
There are four key tasks that would initiate this project and then the tasks would vary based upon each scope of work. The following tasks would be conducted for all scopes of work.

Task 1 Data Collection
Prior to any initial meetings, the Matrix Consulting Group will provide the City with a list of initial data requirements for the study. This will allow our project team to review this information thoroughly in preparation for initial discussions with staff. A common list of data collection items include:
• Budgeted Expenditures per Fund and Department.
• Audited Actual Expenditures per Fund and Department.
• Current organizational chart outlining City Departments. • Staffing per Fund and Department.
• List of current fees to be included in the scope.
• List of all current city owned infrastructure and equipment • Copy of City’s most recent General Plan, Land Use and Housing Elements. • Copy of any previous studies / analyses.

The provision of these items will allow our project team to familiarize themselves with the City’s structure and its current cost allocation plans and practices.

Deliverable List of basic data requirements for the Study Meetings None
Estimated City Support 4-8 hours for staff to collect and distribute information Project Timeline Weeks 1-2
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 16
Task 2 Study Objectives and Project Schedule
Once the data has been collected, the project team will then meet with designated City staff to discuss any issues identified by the project team, as well as to clarify any existing issues or concerns held by the City regarding the current cost allocation plan or user fee study methodology. Discussions will include:
• Review of the City’s specific needs and critical issues surrounding development and implementation of the full cost plan and user fee study. • Opportunities for improvement and restructuring of previous plans and fee analyses, and/or review and discussion of existing cost allocation methodologies and indirect support.
• Discussion of cost recovery goals and targets for the user fee analysis.

At the culmination of the meeting, the project team and the designated City staff will leave with a greater understanding of the overall approach and methodology that will be taken by the project team to conduct the Cost Allocation and user fee studies for the City.

Deliverable Project Schedule
Meetings Kickoff
Estimated City Support 1 hour for all involved City Departments Project Timeline Weeks 1-2
Task 3 Present the Final Report to Key Stakeholders
The presentation of results to City officials and/or stakeholders is critical to the success of the overall engagement. Because the product from the study is often controversial, the objective of this final step is to present a succinct summary that provides decision makers with key information. The Matrix Consulting Group will attend and present the Study at up to three (3) Committee or Council Meetings, including any fee adoption hearings. We believe that these number of meetings is typically sufficient to ensure that there is buy-in from the stakeholders.

Deliverable Presentation
Meetings 1-3 City Committee / Commission / Council Meetings Estimated City Support 1-2 hours for Presentation Review Project Timeline Weeks 24+
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 17
Task 4 Excel-Based Models and Training
The City of Pacific Grove has requested models and training facilitating their ability to update the final versions of the Studies. Our Excel-based models would provide the ability for the City to adapt and continuously update results from year to year as the organization changes.

After the final drafts are approved, at the discretion of City staff, the project team would meet with and train designated City employees on use of the models. Staff will be provided with training that includes: a step-by-step PowerPoint presentation; a User’s Manual which explains key concepts, defines basic terms, includes a customized updated checklist of data that needs to be entered, and discusses different scenario options (e.g., adding staff or new fees, adjusting time estimates, etc.).

Deliverable Study Model, Backup Documentation, User Guide Meetings Model Training
Estimated City Support 2 hours for Training Attendance
Project Timeline Weeks 20+
Cost Allocation Plan
Through this scope of service, the Matrix Consulting Group will work with City staff to define the purpose and goals for the overhead cost allocation plan, developing a plan that is both accurate and reflective of the City’s current organizational structure. The following tasks outline our approach for developing a Full Cost Plan, OMB Compliant Cost Allocation Plan, and establishes Indirect Cost Rates.

Task 1 Interview Staff and Gather Allocation Metrics
The project team would review the City’s budget and financial structure to identify City departments and services to be allocated. To structure a custom cost allocation model, our project team would perform the following:
• Review and discuss the accounting (fund and organizational levels) structure of the City based upon the budgeted expenditures to identify any anomalies from previous years.
• Identify and meet specific central services departments to develop allocation bases and ensure that the plan reflects the following aspects:

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 18
- All current services provided by the Department are identified and documented within the Cost Allocation Plan.
- Allocation bases discussed to be utilized are reflective of the current level of effort and most relatable to the service being performed.

The following is a sample flowchart visually representing discussion outcome, the first level is the central services department, the second level is the identified service category, and the third level is the basis by which costs will be allocated:
• Discuss alternative allocations, including outcomes and potential impacts.

The points above provide examples of the types of detailed and in-depth discussions that the project team will have with City Departments involved in the cost allocation process.

At this point in the process, the project team would reach out to each department and ask for specific allocation metrics such as purchase orders, invoices, sq. ft. per facility, etc.

Deliverable Allocation Metric Requests from Support Departments Meetings 1 Departmental Support Meeting per Department
Estimated City Support 1 hour per City Support Department Project Timeline Weeks 2-5
Task 2 Review of Draft Cost Allocation Metrics
Based upon units of service identified in Task 1 and the allocation metrics collected, the project team would put together allocation statistic workbooks for review with specific Central Service Departments. The purpose of these workbooks is to review the initial results of the allocation metrics gathered by the project team. The following graphic shows an example of the allocation workbook:

Finance
Payroll
# of
Employees
per Division
Accounts
Payable
# of Invoices
per Division
Financial
Reporting
Actual
Expenses per
Division
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 19
Fund Dept Desc
# of AR Transactions
per Fund/Dept Allocation %
1 10 City Manager 3 0.87%
1 16 Human Resources 30 8.75%
1 20 City Attorney 30 8.75%
1 30 Police 68 19.83%
1 35 Fire 1 0.29%
1 40 Development Services 7 2.04%
1 50 Public Works Streets 5 1.46%
1 50 Public Works Facilities 1 0.29%
1 50 Public Works Community Services 185 53.94%
10 Water 1 0.29%
14 Sewer 8 2.33%
29 Self-Insured Liability Fund 4 1.17%
TOTAL 343 100.00%
In the sample graphic provided, based upon the number of AR Transactions per Fund/Department, the primary support is for Public Works Community Services (54%) for all the Parks and Recreation transactions, followed by Police (20%). Based upon the results of this sample, the project team would verify with Finance that the statistics were allocated to the appropriate fund/department and that the resulting percentage is reflective of the support being provided by the Accounts Receivable staff and function.

This type of detailed review is critical for the development of a defensible cost allocation plan. It also ensures that departmental staff and city staff are comfortable with the use of the allocation metrics and the support that those metrics represent.

Deliverable Draft Allocation Workbooks
Meetings 1 Draft Allocation Meeting per Department
Estimated City Support 1 hour per City Support Department Project Timeline Weeks 4-8
Task 3 Structure and Prepare Draft Full Cost Allocation Model Once the Central Service departments and administrative functional areas have agreed upon the appropriate allocation metrics for their services; allowable administrative or other indirect costs are allocated to each benefiting City department, operating unit, or fund. At this point the project team would begin customizing the Cost Plan model to meet the City’s specified needs, including:
• Ensuring methodologies and assumptions comply with Federal regulations and general accounting principles.
• Providing the ability to add or remove direct or indirect costs as future needs and programs change.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 20
During the development of the cost allocation plan, the project team will ensure that any expenses included in the plan are vetted and reviewed with Budget staff as well as incorporate any direct reimbursements. The results of the draft custom cost allocation model will be provided to City staff in numerical format in excel prior to the development of a draft report.

Deliverable Draft Cost Allocation (Excel Results)
Meetings Virtual Draft Results Meeting with Finance
Estimated City Support 1 hour for Finance
Project Timeline Weeks 6-10
Task 4 Comparison to Previous Cost Allocation Plan
The results of Task 3 will allow the project team to compare the results of the initial draft Cost Allocation Plan to the results of the 2018 cost plan. The comparison workbook typically includes the following components:
• Comparison of total costs included: This tab compares all the central service expenditures that were included previously compared to the current year. Any significant changes are highlighted, and notes are provided for the difference. • Comparison of total costs allocated: This tab compares by central service the costs that got allocated out to receivers, as depending upon allocated or unallowable costs these can vary from the total costs included. It also provides insight into any potential structural changes and their impact on the plan’s results. • Comparison of receivers: This tab compares by receiving department and / or fund the total cost allocated to them in the prior year’s cost plan compared to this the proposed costs being allocated. Any changes of more than 5% are explained in a notes section including providing numerical references where appropriate. • Detailed summary results: This tab shows in excel format the detailed summary schedule produced by the cost allocation plan, so by central service the total cost allocated to each receiving department for the current year.

This flux analysis workbook is an efficient way in which we can review the results of the cost plan with the City. This type of review also minimizes the number of draft reports that are reviewed by staff.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 21
Deliverable Comparison of Cost Allocation Results (Excel) Meetings None
Estimated Co. Support 1 hour for Finance
Project Timeline Weeks 9-11
Task 5 Finalize the Cost Allocation Plan
Upon review and approval of the draft cost plan by central service departments and the Finance Department, the project team will finalize the Cost Allocation Plan and report.

The final deliverables associated with the Cost Allocation Plan will be:
• Cost allocation plan report: including all detailed allocation schedules, cost schedules, summary schedules, and narrative information regarding the central services included.
• Excel summary schedule: the results of the full cost allocation plan in Excel format for ease of calculations, incorporation into City documents, and review by staff. • Flux analysis: the excel workbook comparison between the City’s current plan and proposed cost plan.
• Comparison results memo: a memo summarizing the differences between the current and proposed plan, as well as recommendations for future updates.

This type of final work product ensures that information is available in a variety of formats for City staff to use. The detailed report serves as backup documentation; whereas the excel results can be input into budget documents. The flux analysis and comparison memo provide insight into major differences between current and proposed plan.

Deliverable Final Cost Allocation Report
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 10-14
Task 6 Structure Draft OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Along with development of a Full Cost Allocation Plan, the City is also looking at developing an OMB Compliant Cost Plan. There are two key differences between a Full Cost and OMB Plan:

1. Expenditures Allocated: The OMB 2 CFR Part 200 must be based upon the most recent fiscal year’s audited actual expenditures.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 22

2. Types of Services Included: Services such as lobbying, legislative costs (City Council), certain Treasurer costs, and one-time costs cannot be included in the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 plan.

While the Full Cost Plan is used internally for Citywide indirect reimbursements, the OMB Plan can be used for grant reimbursements for both State and Federal projects and awards. Many of the tasks noted in the Full Cost Plan are necessary for the development of the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 Cost Plan. Based upon units of service identified in the Plan, allowable administrative or other indirect costs are allocated to each benefiting fund, department, and division. At this point the project team would begin customizing the OMB Cost Plan model to meet the City’s specified needs, including:
• Ensuring methodologies and assumptions comply with Federal regulations and general accounting principles.
• Customizing cost allocation summary schedules and narratives in a format that will best allow the City to update and use them for future needs. • Develop justifiable internal and external overhead rates for reimbursement purposes for federal and state grants.

The draft OMB Cost Allocation Plan will provide clear documentation regarding the basis for allocations, and the methodologies applied to achieve the plan’s final result. The Draft OMB Plan will be discussed and reviewed with each participating department as well as Executive staff.

Deliverable Draft OMB Cost Plan (Excel Results)
Meetings Draft Results Meeting
Estimated Support 1 hour per meeting participant
Project Timeline Weeks 10-12
Task 7 Finalize OMB Cost Allocation Plan
Once the finance department has approved the draft analysis results of the OMB Cost Plan, the project team would develop a draft narrative report including all the relevant OMB compliant documentation as well as the detailed results of the analysis.

As with the full cost plan this report would be delivered to the Finance Department for review to ensure that there are no major concerns regarding any of the metrics as well as verbiage utilized in the report. Upon review and approval by the City’s Finance and Grant Staff, the project team would finalize the OMB 2 CFR Part 200 Cost Allocation Plan and Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 23
prepare the final report. The report and deliverables will include a detailed report outlining the metrics, narratives, and numerical results of the analysis; summary schedule in excel; and comparative analysis in excel.

Deliverable Final OMB Cost Allocation Report
Meetings None
Estimated Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 12-14
Comprehensive User Fee Study
This study aims to calculate the full (direct and indirect) cost associated with providing all citywide fee-related services and ensure that current fees comply with state (Prop 26 & 218) and local guidelines. The following tasks provide our workplan for conducting the Comprehensive User Fee Study.

Task 1 Develop a Schedule of Current and Potential Fees for Service The scope of this effort will be all user fees charged by the City of Pacific Grove. Current as well as potential fees and charges will be identified and documented. The project team will work with staff to go through their current fee schedules in line-item by line-item detail. This meeting is critical in ensuring that staff can incorporate any updates or changes to the fee study based upon code, regulation, staffing, process, or technological changes. The focus of this meeting will be the following:
• Renaming fees: Rewording or renaming fees to identify services more clearly. • Eliminating fees: Removing any outdated services or fees. • Adding new fees: Capturing any new services or breaking out existing fee categories to more clearly identify all the services being provided by city staff as well as identifying potential fees for service that the city would like to provide. • Recategorization of fees: Collapsing or expanding multiple fee ranges to better capture the services being provided. For example, eliminating lot ranges or acreages if those do not impact review amount, but adding in categories based upon approval body (i.e., Commission vs. Director level). • Building permit fee basis: Discussing options for charging building fees based upon project valuation or sq. ft. and occupancy type, and / or different types of fees for different types of projects.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 24
• Cross-departmental support: Identifying other city divisions / departments that work on fees, to ensure that the final fee calculated reflects the full cost to the City. • City and State surcharges: Capturing any city surcharges such as a Technology or General Plan Maintenance Fee as well as any state surcharges on the fee schedule to more transparently show all fees.

It is important to note that this meeting occurs first, as to ensure that any major proposed structural changes are captured prior to collecting time estimate information or developing draft fee results. However, there is the ability to make any adjustments throughout the study.

Deliverable Proposed Fee Structure(s)
Meetings Fee Structure Meeting with Each Department
Estimated City Support 1 hour per involved City Departments Project Timeline Weeks 2-6
Task 2 Conduct Time Data Gathering Workshops
The project team will conduct workshops to gather time estimates for each service included in the study, interviewing key personnel from each department and analyzing the various activities being performed. The flowchart shows an example of the steps involved in permit processing and time associated with each step.

As the flowchart shows, basic process steps in application/permit processing will be documented and provided in detail for each department / division represented in the study. Where possible, the project team will try to minimize impact on staff by incorporating any baseline assumptions from prior city studies. Staff will be provided time to provide any edits or comments on time estimate information.

Deliverable Time Estimate Workbook(s)
Meetings 2-3 Time Estimate Workshops with Each Department Estimated City Support 1-4 hours per involved City Departments Project Timeline Weeks 4-8
Intake and
Processing
• Permit Tech
• 15 min
Routing
• Permit Tech
• 10 min
Initial Review
• Plan Checker
• 1 hr
Final Review
• Plan Check
Eng.
• 30 min
Issue Permit
• Permit Tech
• 15 min
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 25
Task 3 Develop Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Based on the City’s staffing and budget information, the project team will calculate fully burdened hourly rates inclusive of direct and indirect costs. The following points highlight the cost components and factors included in fully burdened rates:
• Direct costs: This component accounts for salary and benefits associated with each employee or position and is reflective of City staffing and salary reports. • Indirect costs - departmental: This component accounts for administrative and management support provided to line level staff, as well as operational services and supplies which are used in the execution of job duties. This cost component is developed through interviews with staff, as well as an analysis of services and supply budgets.
• Indirect costs - citywide: This component accounts for citywide support such as Finance, HR, and Solicitor support provided by other city departments. This cost component is derived from the City’s Cost Allocation Plan.

Once the cost components have been documented and developed, the project team will review MOU’s, and talk with departmental staff to determine appropriate productive hour calculations. This reduction in available hours will ensure that fully burdened hourly rates account for leave accruals (holiday, vacation, and sick), as well as any meetings or trainings. The project team will utilize the results of this task along with Task 2 to calculate the full cost of services.

The results of this analysis will be fully burdened hourly rates by position. The project team will utilize the results of this task along with Task 2 to calculate the full cost of services.

Deliverable Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Meetings Meeting with Finance
Estimated City Support 1 hour for Finance
Project Timeline Weeks 5-10
Task 4 Perform a Total Cost Analysis
The Matrix Consulting Group’s costing model is built based on the City’s operations, budget detail and intended uses for the results. This method is a customized approach specific to each jurisdiction for cost analysis of user fee services. It is a “bottom-up” approach, which is the most defensible methodology for calculating user fees. The Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 26
methodology incorporates the time estimate information (Task 2) and fully burdened hourly rate information (Task 3). The following graphic shows the cost calculation:

This costing method uses time and annual activity level data to establish the cost of providing services on both a unit and annual level. Once the time spent for a fee activity is determined for each individual or position, the team uses its fee and rate software to apply the fully burdened hourly rates calculated in the previous task.

Resulting costs are presented on a unit and annual level and are compared to the existing fee schedule and revenue reports. The following graphic shows a sample presentation:

Per Unit
Fee Title Current
Fee
Total Cost
Per Unit
Surplus/(Deficit) Per
Unit Cost Recovery %
Lot Line Adjustment $900 $1,557 ($657) 58%
Temporary Use Permit $40 $325 ($285) 12%
AVERAGE COST RECOVERY PER UNIT 35%
Annual
Fee Title Workload Revenue at
Current Fee Revenue at Full Cost Annual Surplus/ (Deficit) Lot Line Adjustment 4 $3600 $6,228 ($2,628)
Temporary Use Permit 60 $2400 $19,500 ($17,100)
TOTAL $6,000 $25,728 ($19,728)
As the example in the graphic indicates, the per unit subsidy for the Lot Line Adjustment at $657 is more than double the per unit subsidy for the Temporary Use Permit. However, the annual results help provide Department management with some additional context, as due to the volume of activity, the larger impact to the Department is felt by the smaller subsidy for the Temporary Use Permit.

The City will obtain detailed information like that presented in the previous graphic regarding cost recovery surpluses and deficits on both a detailed (per unit) and global (annualized) level, as well as an understanding of cost components for each service.

Time
Estimate
Fully
Burdened
Rate
Full Cost
Fee
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 27
Deliverable Per Unit and Annual Fee Study Results
Meetings 1-2 Draft Results Meetings per Department
Estimated City Support 1-3 hours per City Department
Project Timeline Weeks 8-11
Task 5 Conduct a Market Rate Survey to Similar Jurisdictions The project team will work with the City to identify jurisdictions within Monterey County or other coastal communities for the fee comparison survey. This comparative survey activity will be conducted utilizing the following steps:
• Developing fee scenarios for each department included in the study to be compared to other jurisdictions (i.e., Single Family Home 2,500 sq. ft. $325,000). • Graphing the results of the fee analysis for easy visual comparison purposes. • Collecting contextual information such as population size, budget, staffing, last time fee study was done, and last fee schedule update.

As market surveys do not provide adequate or objective information about the relationship of a jurisdiction’s costs to its fees, these steps ensure we provide the City with the most amount of information as possible.

Deliverable Comparative Graphs (included in Draft Report) Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 4-14
Task 6 Review / Revise Fee Study Results
Because the analysis of fees for service is based on estimates and information provided by City staff, it is extremely important that all participants are comfortable with our methodology and with the data they have provided. Once the departments agree that the analysis reflects the reasonable costs of providing services, City management will have an opportunity to review the results.

At this point in the process, the project team will provide Departments with Recommended Fee Workbooks. The Recommended Fee Workbooks will provide departments / divisions the results of the fee study in an excel based format. The following table shows an example of the Recommended Fee Workbook:

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 28
Current - Per Unit Results
Fee Title Current Fee Total Cost Surplus/(Deficit)
Per Unit
Cost Recovery
%
Lot Line Adjustment $900 $1,557 ($657) 58%
Temporary Use Permit $40 $325 ($285) 12%
Recommended Fee
Fee Title Recommended
Fee
$ Change to
Recommended
Fee
% Change to
Recommended Fee
Recommended
Fee Cost
Recovery %
Lot Line Adjustment $1,200 $300 33% 77%
Temporary Use Permit $100 $60 150% 31%
Recommended Fee Annual
Fee Title Workload Revenue at
Current Fee
Revenue at
Recommended Fee
Potential
Change in
Revenue
Lot Line Adjustment 4 $3,600 $4,800 $1,200
Temporary Use Permit 60 $2,400 $6,000 $3,600
TOTAL $6,000 $10,800 $4,800
As the table above indicates, the recommended fee workbook allows the Departments to input information into the Recommended Fee column and then see its impacts such as the dollar increase, percentage increase, and what percentage of their current costs they are going to recover. Additionally, the workbook allows the Department to calculate potential increases or declines to revenue as a result of the recommended fees.

Deliverable Recommended Fee Workbooks
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 10-14
Task 7 Prepare a Draft User Fee Study Report
Upon conclusion of the fee study, we will prepare a detailed report that summarizes the results of each of the previous work tasks described above. This report will include:
• A succinct executive summary discussing the study, methodology, and the results. • A narrative describing the services included in the study. • A section on proposed modifications to the current fee schedule, including removal or addition of new fees for service.
• A section on per unit and annual results for each fee included in the analysis and where workload data is available.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 29
• A comparative survey section outlining key fees and their comparison to other local jurisdictions, as well as contextual information regarding budget, staffing, and when they last conducted fee studies.

The draft report will be provided to user fee departments and city staff for any edits, comments, or revisions.

Deliverable Draft Fee Study Report
Meetings None
Estimated City Support 1-2 Hours per City Department to Review Report Project Timeline Weeks 10-16
Task 8 Finalize Fee Study Report
Any edits or revisions to the draft user fee study report will be incorporated into the finalized fee study report. This finalized fee study report will not only include all elements of the draft fee study report (Task 7), but also include any additional cost recovery considerations and policy considerations for council’s review.

Deliverable Final Fee Study Report
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 15-20
Task 9 Master Fee Schedule
Once the final user fee study report is approved, the project team will develop a master fee schedule, consolidating all fees in a singular location. The master fee schedule will include a numbering system, the department name, the fee title, the unit of application, the current fee, the total cost per unit calculated through the study, the difference, the cost recovery, the relevant rule / regulation that applies to the fee type, the staff recommended fee, and staff recommended cost recovery level. This type of attachment is extremely helpful for staff as part of the staff report provided to Council upon adoption.

Deliverable Master Fee Schedule
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 18-20
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 30
Development Impact Fee Study
Any Development Impact Fees established by the City will need to follow AB1600, Government Section Code 66000 of the Mitigation Fee Act, and the newly implemented AB602. Conducting a Development Impact Fee Study will help the City calculate the appropriate nexus and maximum allowable impact fees for the City. To better assist the City in accomplishing this study, effectively and cost efficiently, the project team is proposing a two-phased approach to conducting this study.

Phase 1 would evaluate if there is a nexus that exists between projected development and the need for additional infrastructure to meet existing service levels. Impact fees cannot be used to burden the share of augmented service levels on new development. If Phase 1 results in there being a nexus, then the project team will transition to Phase 2, which will be the calculation and implementation of the impact fees. The following tasks provide our workplan for both phases of the Development Impact Fee Study.

Phase 1 – Nexus Consideration
Task 1 Review of Impact Fees
The purpose of this task is to develop an initial understanding of the City’s proposed impact fee structure, projected growth levels, and any future developments that will impact that population growth. During this phase, the project team will document the following:
• Name of Proposed Impact Fee
• Municipal Ordinance / Resolution authorizing the fee
• Capital or Master Plan to support the fee
• Purpose of the fee
This documentation will be critical to ensuring that any updates to the Impact fee program comply with AB1600 and AB602. This documentation will serve as the basis for the project team’s discussion with city staff on next steps for evaluating impact fees.

Deliverable Current Impact Fees Memo
Meetings Impact Fee Current State Discussion
Estimated City Support 1-2 hours for Meeting Attendance Project Timeline Weeks 6-10
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 31
Task 2 Projected Population Growth and Facility Needs
The key component of any impact fee analysis is determining the proportionality and nexus that exists based upon projected development. During this task, the project team will conduct research based upon regional forecasted growth as well as internal City staff (Planning staff) expected growth to determine future population projection.

Based upon that future population projection, the project team would review the City’s current infrastructure inventory and determine if there is any need for additional equipment or new facilities. The project team will also meet with staff to identify any master plans in existence at the time of the creation / development of impact fees. This will require meeting with relevant city Department staff to review all equipment and identifying the quantity and cost estimates for these items.

Impact fees cannot be used to enhance existing service levels, only maintain current service levels. During this task, the project team will ensure that for defensibility purposes any new facilities or equipment identified are directly correlated to population increases.

Deliverable Infrastructure Spreadsheet by Service Area
Meetings 1-2 Meetings for Infrastructure Needs
Estimated City Support 1-3 hours for Population Projection Discussions Project Timeline Weeks 8-14
If Phase 1 results in a nexus finding, the project team will move to Phase 2. If there are no nexus findings, the project team will provide the City with documentation outlining the reasons why Development Impact Fees cannot be created, and any future scenarios that could occur that would allow the City to implement Impact Fees.

Phase 2 – Impact Fee Analysis
Task 3 Draft Impact Fee Analysis
The largest proportion of the impact fee analysis is the growth and facilities projection.

Once that task is completed and a nexus can be established that is based upon city adopted master plans the project team will work on calculating the draft impact fees.

There are two components to the calculation of impact fees: the total cost of facilities and their cost basis. The following points describe these components:
• Total Cost of the Facilities/Infrastructure: There are three different subcomponents that comprise the maximum cost of the facilities that can be used for Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 32
the calculation of impact fees: Cost of Facilities/Infrastructure, Administrative Cost, and Offsetting Credits/Revenues.
• Cost Basis: There are several different cost bases that can be used for the calculation of impact fees, such as population, housing units, workload, etc.

Based on data provided by the City, as well as appropriate and preferred cost bases, and State law, the project team will calculate the draft Impact Fees. The project team will meet with City staff to review these draft impact fees based upon land use type.

Deliverable Draft Impact Fee Per Unit Results
Meetings 1-2 Draft Meeting Results
Estimated City Support 1-2 hours per Impact Fee Department Project Timeline Weeks 13-17
Task 4 Comparative Impact Fee Survey
Utilizing the comparative jurisdictions identified by the City, the project team will conduct a comparison of the full cost of Impact Fees and the recommended Impact Fee to other surrounding jurisdictions in Monterey County. This comparison will be conducted based upon construction project types, (i.e., New Single Family Home, New Hotel, New MultiFamily, etc.). The use of construction scenarios provides City staff with a clearer comparison of the impact of the fee upon future development.

Deliverable Impact Fee Comparative Survey Results
Meetings Fee Comparison Meeting with City Department(s) Estimated City Support 1-2 hours for City Departments
Project Timeline Weeks 15-20
Task 5 Draft Impact Fee Report
The draft impact fee results and comparative survey will be incorporated into a draft impact fee report. The draft impact fee report will have the following components:
• Executive Summary: Providing a brief overview of the background of the scope, the overall methodology, the results of the analysis, and the implementation guidelines (including future fee increases).
• Legal Framework: This will outline the current legal requirements for impact fees, and how the proposed impact fee will meet these requirements. • Growth Projections: This section of the report outlines the growth projections.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 33
• Impact Fee Analysis: This section demonstrates the calculation used to derive the full cost of the impact fees, as well as the recommended fees by the City. • Comparative Survey: This section outlines how the City’s calculated and recommended fees compare to other jurisdictions.

These components will result in a consolidated draft report that will be distributed City staff for review. It will be required to be reviewed by all the different departments to ensure that assumptions are presented accurately.

Deliverable Draft Impact Fee Report
Meetings None
Estimated City Support 1-2 hours for Report Review
Project Timeline Weeks 18-22
Task 6 Final Report
Based upon City staff comments, the project team will revise the Final Report to ensure all comments and concerns are captured. This final report will serve as the basis for presentations to internal and external stakeholders.

Deliverable Final Impact Fee Report
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 22-24
Task 7 Delivery of Impact Fee Backup Documentation
Unlike other cost of services analyses, the components of an impact fee should not be updated annually, as it is primarily based upon population projections and timeframes associated with replacement of existing facility and equipment inventory and / or acquiring new facilities or inventory.

When discussing the draft impact fee results with City staff, the project team will share the initial Excel workbook showing calculations, and at the conclusion of the study, the project team will provide the City with the backup workbook showing all calculations. In this workbook, the project team would also set up a template allowing the City to update its impact fees based upon a cost factor. The industry standard for updating impact fees is based upon the construction cost index (CCI). This standard is used as the costs for impact fees are based upon infrastructure rather than labor or material costs.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 34
Deliverable Final Backup Documentation
Meetings None
Estimated City Support None
Project Timeline Weeks 24+
4 Project Timeline
This project is anticipated to take between 3-6 months to complete. All studies can be conducted concurrently. For each task included, we have identified the time frame during the 6 (six) month period in which the analysis will be completed. It is anticipated the Cost Plan will take 3 months, User Fee Study 5 months, and Impact Fee study 6 months.

Task Project Week(s) Deliverable

PROJECT WIDE TASKS
Data Collection Weeks 1 – 2 Data Collection and Project Schedule Memo Study Objectives Weeks 1 – 2 Initial meeting with key City staff Presentation of Results Weeks 24+ Council Presentation
Excel Models and Training Weeks 24+ Model, Backup Documentation, User Guide

COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Interview Staff and Gather Data Weeks 2-5 Review allocation metrics.

Review Allocation Metrics Weeks 4-8 Review of allocation workbooks Structure Draft Full Cost Plan Weeks 6-10 Draft Cost Allocation Model Compare to Previous Plan Weeks 9-11 Comparison Results (Excel) Finalize Full Cost Plan Weeks 10-14 Final Cost Plan Report Structure Draft OMB Plan Weeks 10-12 Draft OMB Cost Plan Finalize OMB Cost Plan Weeks 12-14 Final OMB Cost Plan Report

USER FEE STUDY
Current & Potential Fees Weeks 2-6 Provision of proposed fees Data Workshops Weeks 4-8 Time Estimate Workbooks
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates Weeks 5-10 Fully burdened hourly rates by position Total Cost Analysis Weeks 8-11 Draft Per Unit and Annual Cost Analysis Results Comparative Survey Weeks 4-14 Survey Results
Review/Revise Results Weeks 10-14 Draft Results Workbooks / Recommended Fees Draft Fee Study Report Weeks 10-16 Draft Fee Study Report Prepare Final Report Weeks 15-20 Final Fee Study Report Develop Master Fee Schedule Weeks 18-20 Consolidated Master Fee Schedule

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Phase 1: Nexus Consideration
Review of Impact Fees Weeks 6-10 Current Impact Fee Memo Projected Growth and Needs Weeks 8-14 Spreadsheet summarizing infrastructure needs Phase 2: Impact Fee Analysis
Draft Fees Analysis Weeks 13-17 Draft Impact Fee Per Unit Results Comparative Survey Weeks 15-20 Survey Results
Draft Report Weeks 18-22 Draft Impact Fee Report
Final report Weeks 22-24 Final Impact Fee Report
Backup Documentation Weeks 24+ Delivery of Impact Fee Backup Documentation Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 35
6 Training
The Matrix Consulting Group believes in a hands-on approach to working with our clients related to cost allocation and cost of service studies. Our goal is to educate our clients during the study regarding methodologies used, and applications of results. This transfer of knowledge during the study allows for staff to be prepared for presentations to and questions from both internal City stakeholders (i.e., City Council) as well as members of the community.

In addition to working with City staff during the study to facilitate understanding of methods and methodologies, the project team will also work with City staff at the completion of each scope to ensure that results can be implemented immediately or phased in as necessary. Finally, when delivering models to staff for future updates, our project team will work closely with City staff to ensure understanding of each model, as well as the various options for updating results.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 36
7 Ongoing Support
The Matrix Consulting Group is committed to ensuring that City staff have access to the resources needed to understand the studies and outcomes developed through the course of engagement. Should City staff have questions about a study, study component, or update options, our project team and staff will be available to answer questions as needed. Our staff can provide support via phone or email, depending on the nature of the issue, and will work with staff to explain concepts, or provide historical knowledge regarding how or why an assumption was made.

Our ongoing support to City staff is provided at no additional charge.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 37
8 References
The Matrix Consulting Group has worked with a variety of municipalities across the U.S. conducting and cost allocation plans and user and development impact fee studies. The following table provides references for four current and previous clients for whom similar services were provided.

Client Client Contact Project Type
Manhattan Beach, CA
1400 Highland Ave.

Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Steve Charelian
Finance Director
(310) 802-5555
[email protected]
Cost Allocation Plan
Comprehensive Fee Study
FY14-15, FY19-20
Menifee, CA
29844 Haun Road
Menifee, CA 92586
Margarita Cornejo
Financial Services Manager
(951) 723-3716
[email protected]
Cost Allocation Plan
Citywide User Fee Study
Development Impact Fee Study
July 2021 – Current
(Expected completion 9/22)
Redwood City, CA
1017 Middlefield Rd.

Redwood City, CA 94063
Jun Nguyen
Revenue Services Manager
(650) 780-7213
[email protected]
Cost Allocation Plan
Citywide Fee Study
FY16-19
San Mateo, CA
330 W. 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
Brian Alexander
Management Fellow
(650) 522-7209
[email protected]
Cost Allocation Plan
Development Services Fee Study
Development Impact Fee Study
FY12-13, FY14-15, FY18-19,
FY20-21
Daly City, CA
333 90th Street
Daly City, CA 94015
Abby Veeser
Deputy Dir. of Finance & Admin Svcs
(650) 991-8049
[email protected]
Full Cost Allocation Plan
User Fee Study
FY 21-22
We are happy to provide additional information or references for any other projects referenced in our proposal.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 38
9 Pricing
Pursuant to the RFP, our Price Proposal has been submitted as a separate document.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 39
10 Proposed Legal Agreement
We are not proposing any modifications to the City’s standard contract (RFP Exhibit B).

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 40
11 Additional Information
The City has requested samples of both a Development Impact Fee report and training materials developed for our Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee models. The following points summarize the examples we have chosen to provide:
• Development Impact Fee Report: We are providing the final report provided to the City of San Mateo, CA outlining calculation of impact fees. This report was adopted in the spring of 2021.
• Cost Allocation Plan: We are providing two training documents, including our user guide that outlines key concepts and methodologies, as well as an explainer on the “double step down” methodology required by OMB.
• User Fee Study: We are providing a copy of a typical instruction tab included in each of our User Fee models, that details each tab within the model, as well as the tasks to be completed on each tab.

The sample items outlined above can be found at the following link:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Y7rXz-2k2ZiCWqCZCwJ1tW8fbaJNoSrU?usp=sharing We would be happy to provide further samples upon request by the City.

Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 44

COURTNEY RAMOS

FINANCIAL SERVICES VICE PRESIDENT, MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP Ms. Ramos is our Financial Services Practice Leader, who oversees cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her tenure with the firm has also included participation in operational audit engagements focusing on reviewing organizational and staffing structures to enhance services.

Courtney’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 250 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on development and documentation of direct and indirect costs, fair and equitable allocation methodologies, and defensible results.
• Expertise also includes development of fiscal policies and procedures relating to cost of service and cost recovery.

Experience Highlights
Daly City, CA: Courtney served as the project executive and project manager on this engagement which determined the overhead allocation and full cost of providing city fee-based services. Key analysis included:
• Identifying services provided by City staff, including documenting services, and service levels.
• Ensuring fair and equitable allocations of support services. • Determining appropriate time estimates and cost calculations for fee-based services.
• Worked with staff to ensure understanding of methodologies, and how to implement results.

Milpitas, CA: This study looked at determining the full cost associated with Development Services functions including Planning, Building, Engineering, and Fire Services. Key analysis included:
• Developing fully burdened hourly rates that accounted for divisional and citywide overhead.
• Documenting appropriate time estimates for permit and application services.
• Presenting results to key internal and external stakeholders to ensure understanding of results.

Role on This Engagement:

Courtney will serve as the Project Executive on this engagement, ensuring timely project deliverables, quality control, and presentation support to stakeholders.

Relevant CA Clients:

Citrus Heights
Cupertino
Daly City
Dixon
Elk Grove
Fairfield
Humboldt County
Livermore
Long Beach
Manhattan Beach
Orange
Pacific Grove
Redwood City
San Bernardino County
San Pablo
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Sonoma County
South San Francisco
Stanislaus County
Sunnyvale
Vacaville
Winters
Willits
Years of Experience: 17
Education:

A.A. Administration of
Justice, A.A. Sociology
Santa Barbara City College
(CA).

Professional Association /
Certification:

Government Finance
Officers Association
California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
OMB Cost Plan Best
Practices
Proposal for User Fees, Development Impact Fee, and Cost Allocation Plan Studies Pacific Grove, CA Matrix Consulting Group Page 45

KHUSHBOO INGLE

SENIOR MANAGER, MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
Ms. Ingle is a Senior Manager who manages cost allocation plan, user fee, development impact fee, and cost of service engagements. Her experience with the firm also includes participation in operational audit engagements focusing on reviewing organizational, staffing, and internal processes to enhance services.

Khushboo’s relevant experience include:
• Completed over 150 cost of service studies for clients across the United States.
• Analysis focuses on development and documentation of direct and indirect costs, fair and equitable allocation methodologies, defensible results.
• Expertise also includes development of fiscal policies and procedures relating to cost of service and cost recovery.

Experience Highlights
Orange, CA: Khushboo served as the Project Manager on this engagement which looked and conducting a citywide fee study and development impact fee analysis. Key analysis includes:
• Streamlining land use categories for Fire impact fees to represent the current types of use (previous analysis was conducted 10 years prior).
• Identifying growth projections and appropriate nexus
considerations for impact fees.

San Mateo, CA: Khushboo served as the Project Manager on this engagement for evaluating development fees and impact fees. Key analysis included:
• Identifying all impact fees that needed to be updated per AB1600 requirements.
• Documenting population and growth assumptions.
• Presentation to stakeholders to ensure understanding of results.

Role on This Engagement:

Khushboo will serve as the Project Manager on this engagement, leading interviews and coordinating necessary data collection for the financial analysis, policy discussions, and working with the Analysts to compile and analyze data.

Relevant CA Clients:

Berkeley
Citrus Heights
Cupertino
Dixon
Elk Grove
Fairfield
Humboldt County
Livermore
Long Beach
Manhattan Beach
Orange
Pacific Grove
Redwood City
Riverside
San Bernardino County
San Pablo
San Mateo
Santa Clara
Santa Clara County
Sonoma County
South San Francisco
Stanislaus County
Sunnyvale
Vacaville
Winters
Years of Experience: 11
Education:

B.A., University of California
– San Diego, International
Economics
M.A., University of California
– San Diego, International
Affairs
Professional Association /
Certification:

California Society of
Municipal Finance Officers
OMB Cost Allocation Best
Practices
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: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2023
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment with Rincon Consultants Inc.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed contract amendment with Rincon Consultants, Inc. relating to a development project located at 1661 Sunset Drive based on a contract time extension.

DISCUSSION
On August 12, 2021, the Planning Commission approved an Architectural Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Parcel Merger (AP/CDP/PM 19-0645) and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for a project located at 1661 Sunset Drive. The residence proposed and approved for demolition had previously been determined, through the City's Initial Historic Screening (IHS) process, to be ineligible for the City's Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and, therefore, not a historic resource. A neighbor filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and the appeal included an historic assessment prepared by a local architectural historian that contradicted the previous report utilized for the IHS process. Therefore, prior to bringing the appeal before the City Council for consideration, CDD staff decided to prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report (Focused EIR). The City Council approved a contract and reimbursement agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) on November 17, 2021, with a contract term ending December 31, 2022.

After approval of the contract for a Focused EIR, the applicant (Elstob Family Investments LP) decided to retain rather than demolish the existing on-site structures. Due to this change of project scope, anticipated to eliminate a potential significant and unavoidable impact, CDD determined that a Focused EIR was no longer required and processed a contract amendment to revise the previously-prepared IS-MND. The City Council approved the contract amendment on March 2, 2022.

After approval of the first contract amendment, the applicant reconsidered and authorized CDD to amend the contract again to prepare a Focused EIR instead of a Revised IS-MND. CDD then prepared a second contract amendment to revert to the preparation of a Focused EIR based on work already completed by Rincon. The City Council approved the second amendment on May 11, 2022.

However, due to negotiations between the appellant and the applicant, the initial agreement timeframe has expired and neither of the amendments extended the term of the contract beyond December 31, 2022. Therefore, additional time is required for completion of the full scope of the contract and a third amendment is required to extend the contract term from December 31, 2022, to February 1, 2024. The other contract terms would remain the same. Enough funds remain in the contract to complete the work necessary to finalize the Focused EIR.

OPTIONS
The Council could provide alternative direction to Staff.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The costs associated with the preparation of the Focused EIR will be borne by the applicant and there is no financial impact to the City.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Rincon Agreement and Amendment #2
Reimbursement Agreement
Draft Amendment #3
AMENDMENT # 2
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) and Rincon Consultants, Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated December 3, 2021; and
WHEREAS, said Agreement was amended on March 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor desire to amend certain terms of the amended Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

A. The Agreement is amended as follows:

1. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED. The City hereby engages
CONTRACTOR to perform, and CONTRACTOR hereby agrees to perform, the services described in Exhibit A in conformity with the terms of this Agreement.

The services are generally described as follows: Preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (biological and cultural resources) for the 1661 Sunset Drive project, Pacific Grove, California.

2. PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in
accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $ 106,815.00.

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

Exhibit A: Scope Amendment Request for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California (dated April 5, 2022)
B. All other terms of the Agreement remain the same.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________ Megan Jones, Principal
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Dated: ____________________ _______________________________ Ben Harvey, City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 6/9/2022
6/21/2022
Dated: ____________________ _______________________________ Tori Hannah, Administrative Service
Director, Finance & Risk Management
City of Pacific Grove
Dated: ____________________ _______________________________ Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 6/21/2022
6/21/2022
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 1 1 G a r d e n R o ad , S u i te C - 2 5 0
Monte rey, Ca lifo rn ia 93940

8 3 1 3 3 3 0 3 1 0
in fo @ r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l ta n t s .c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s April 5, 2022
Project No: 21-11891

Joe Sidor, Contract Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
Community Development Department
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
via email: [email protected]
Subject: Scope Amendment Request for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California Dear Ms. Hunter:

The purpose of this letter is to request an amendment to the January 14, 2022, contract scope of work and budget between Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) and the City of Pacific Grove (city) for the proposed 1661 Sunset Drive Project. The current scope of work includes the update of the existing ISMND. Pursuant to City direction provided on March 29, 2022, by phone, a Focused Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) will be prepared instead of an IS-MND. Therefore, based on City direction, this amendment includes the preparation of a FEIR for the project. The tasks associated with preparation of a FEIR are outlined below, and are intended to replace the existing tasks associated with the update of the existing IS-MND scope of work.

Scope of Work
Rincon will prepare a Focused EIR for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project. The Focused EIR will, to the extent practicable, rely on existing environmental documentation and technical studies prepared for the site.

Our scope of work for preparation of the Focused EIR will include the following tasks.

Task 1: Project Update and Notice of Preparation
Task 1.1: Project Update Meeting
Rincon will prepare for and participate in a project update meeting with City staff, which is assumed to occur via a virtual platform. This meeting will allow an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the approach to environmental evaluation, existing conditions and baseline for the analysis, and additional community concerns regarding the project that have surfaced to date. We will also use this opportunity to collect any new relevant project or background information not already transmitted.

Task 1.2: Notice of Preparation
Rincon will prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for City staff to review. The NOP alerts responsible agencies and the public about the upcoming CEQA document, so they can contribute their input on the scope of the study. The NOP will consist of a one- to two-page notice with a brief project description, a map of the project area, and instructions for submitting comments. Rincon DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

assumes one round of review for the NOP. Rincon will file the NOP with the State Clearinghouse for local and state review. Rincon also assumes the City will file the NOP and alert applicable responsible agencies and the public. We have not included attendance at a scoping meeting because one is not required for this project; however, we can include one for an additional fee.

Task 2: Cultural Resources Evaluation Update
Rincon has completed peer reviews for the project applicant commissioned archaeological and historic resource studies. As a result of peer reviews and to support CEQA review, Rincon recommends the following actions related to archaeological resources. Rincon also proposes to prepare a supplemental cultural resources memorandum that addresses the following comments from Rincon’s peer review:
 Clarification of the delineation of the project excavation area to confirm the analysis covered the entirety of the project footprint.
 Elaboration on the determination that the abalone concentration does not represent a discrete feature. The presence of discrete features or lack thereof may contribute to the resource’s eligibility recommendation.
 Elaboration and clarification of the potential historic district, and whether P-27-002666 (CA-MNT2148) may qualify as a contributor. Currently there is no such district recorded in the area. If P-27- 002666 (CA-MNT-2148) does in fact qualify as a contributor to a significant district, that would make the resource a historical resource under CEQA, requiring mitigation to address impacts beyond archaeological monitoring.
 Further elaboration and clarification on whether P-27-002666 (CA-MNT-2148) is individually eligible for the CRHR, NRHP, or local significance.
 Providing examples of cultural resources, their relative location to the project site, and details on these resources such as integrity, date, species diversity, etc. Without this information, the argument that P-27-002666 (CA-MNT-2148) has no data potential is left unsupported. This will aid in the elaboration and clarification required to understand whether the resource qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.
 Depending upon whether resource P-27-002666 (CA-MNT-2148) qualifies individually or as a contributor to an eligible historic district, additional and/or modified recommended measures, such as a Phase III data recovery, may be warranted.
 Identification of a recommended CEQA finding.

Our proposed scope of work for the revised reports is presented below.

Task 2.1: Historical Resources Evaluation Update
A Rincon qualified architectural historian will prepare an updated historical resources evaluation of all buildings on the proposed project site. Rincon will conduct supplemental archival research to identify information which suggests if the property has potential to be a historical resource. This will include a review of building permits for the property to confirm original owners and architects. Rincon will also review any available documentation and historic context statements for relevant themes, contexts and property type summaries. Additional research will include a review of newspaper articles, city directories, historic aerial photographs and maps, and other primary and secondary source materials as necessary. In accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, buildings will be recorded and evaluated on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Series Forms; DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Rincon assumes that the buildings can be evaluated as a single property due to their associated history.

The updated evaluation will provide a clear determination on the historical resources status of the property to support CEQA compliance and allow for a thorough assessment of potential impacts. The evaluation will also identify mitigation measures, if needed. Rincon will provide preliminary findings to the city prior to finalizing the study.

Task 2.2: Archaeological Resources Evaluation Update
A Rincon qualified archaeologist will prepare a supplemental cultural resources memorandum. Rincon will review the results of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search of the project site and the results of the archaeological fieldwork conducted for the project to provide a clear recommendation regarding the potential significance of P-27-002666 (CA-MNT-2148) individually and as a potential contributor to a historical district. Rincon will provide preliminary findings to the City prior to finalizing the study.

Task 3: Administrative Draft Focused EIR
The Administrative Draft Focused EIR will include the following key sections.

Executive Summary
The Focused EIR will contain a summary of the proposed project and associated environmental consequences. This information will be presented in tabular format to simplify review by decisionmakers and the public. This section will identify each potential environmental impact, the level of significance of each impact, mitigation measures required and the residual impacts after mitigation. The summary will also note areas of known controversy and an assessment of the alternatives reviewed and their associated impacts. The summary will also include identification of the environmentally superior alternative and the rationale for its selection as such.

Introduction, Project Description, and Environmental Setting The Focused EIR will provide introductory sections that lay the groundwork for and summarize the substantive analysis to follow. The Introduction will describe the purpose and legal authority of the study, the project objectives, and will provide a discussion of lead, responsible and trustee agencies, if any. The Project Description section will provide a detailed summary of the proposed project including text, tables, and graphics to facilitate a thorough understanding of the proposed project.

The Environmental Setting will provide a general description of the geographic character of the project vicinity at the time of NOP distribution. The setting will be based on existing data sources, including the City’s General Plan, LCP, and ordinances, and other relevant environmental documents prepared during recent years, supplemented with information from existing technical studies.

Environmental Impact Analysis
The main body of the Focused EIR will consist of the assessment of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The setting portion of each impact section will describe the applicable environmental conditions of the project area.

If existing data does not allow definitive quantification, reasonable assumptions will be used to qualitatively forecast potential impacts. Cumulative impacts will be discussed within this analysis, but at a lesser level of detail than the project impacts. Mitigation measures may include a range of design DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

measures and programs. All mitigation measures will be presented in wording that can be directly applied to the project and will include monitoring requirements.

The impact analysis section will include a statement of the significance thresholds that were used to determine if an impact would have the potential to result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts of the proposed project when compared to existing conditions in the area will be identified, as will cumulative impacts resulting from regional growth.

The impact analysis section will describe the level of significance after mitigation. Conditions where the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce the identified impacts to a less-than-significant level will be clearly identified. Secondary impacts of mitigation measures will also be discussed. This section will also note whether impacts related to each issue are significant and unavoidable, significant but mitigable, less than significant, or beneficial.

We assume the Focused EIR will contain two technical chapters (Biological Resources and Cultural Resources) and an Effects Found Not to be Significant chapter, as described below.

Biological Resources. Rincon conducted a peer review of the Biological Evaluation prepared for the project site in June 2020 and concluded that additional evaluation of impacts to biological resources would be necessary to sufficiently support the CEQA analysis.

Rincon completed a desktop analysis as part of the IS-MND update and will use the desktop analysis to recommend any additional species-specific or protocol level studies necessary. The biological resources analysis will rely on information in the existing studies in lieu of a reconnaissance site visit and will not include seasonally timed or protocol surveys for rare plants or wildlife and does not include a formal jurisdictional delineation. This scope of work assumes no project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required. The impact analysis will be based on habitat assessment for species known to occur in the region.

Rincon will summarize the findings of the literature review and desktop analysis in the focused EIR with an impacts analysis and recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources. Using the previous cultural resources documentation prepared for the project, the evaluation updates described above, as well as AB 52 consultation conducted by the City, Rincon will identify potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and present mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to the extent feasible.

Effects Found Not to be Significant. This section will address all other CEQA Appendix G resource topics, utilizing the analysis in the existing IS-MND and the bolstered analysis from the previous IS-MND scope of work, where appropriate. This scope of work does not include a site visit or technical modeling for air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, or transportation.

Rather, the existing IS-MND discussion will be bolstered to sufficiently address the CEQA Appendix G threshold questions and to address concerns raised in comments from Wanger Jones Helsley PC on August 12, 2021.

We assume one round of review of City comments for the Administrative Draft Focused EIR.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Alternatives
The Alternatives section will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 The purpose of this section will be to promote informed decision-making and to evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives, with an emphasis on alternatives capable of reducing significant impacts identified in the environmental analysis. This section will identify the “environmentally superior alternative.” If the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR will identify the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining scenarios. Rincon assumes two “build” alternatives will be presented to reduce potential impacts to historical resources, potentially including construction of a new residence on the same footprint as the existing residence, and a preservation alternative. Analysis of these two alternatives will be supported by Rincon’s qualified architectural history staff.

Other CEQA-Required Sections
Also included in the Focused EIR will be other sections required by CEQA, such as table of contents, references, persons contacted, list of preparers, and summary of potential growth-inducing and significant irreversible effects.

Task 4: Draft Focused EIR
After receiving City comments regarding the Administrative Draft EIR and meeting with City staff virtually to review the comments, Rincon will produce the Public Draft EIR. Rincon will respond to one round of City staff comments on the Administrative Draft EIR and prepare the Screencheck Draft EIR, with revisions shown in track changes. Upon receiving clearance from the City, Rincon will accept revisions and provide a clean digital (pdf) version of the Draft EIR suitable for posting on the City’s website. Rincon will prepare all required notices for the Focused EIR, including the Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability. Rincon will submit the Focused EIR, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availability and applicable forms to the State Clearinghouse. We assume the City will handle all notification to responsible agencies and the public and will file the notices with the County Clerk. This scope assumes the City will mail the documents to relevant agencies and interested citizens.

Task 5: Final Focused EIR
The final stages of the Focused EIR process involve responding to comments, preparing the Administrative Final Focused EIR and Final Focused EIR, and holding public hearings and final editorial tasks. At this point, the discretionary permit applications and the Final Focused EIR will be brought together for final public and decision-maker scrutiny to render official decisions regarding the proposed project. Through this process, final changes and policy decisions concerning the project are made. Our work effort regarding this task is delineated below.

Task 5.1: Response to Comments/Administrative Final Focused EIR Rincon staff, in coordination with City staff, will respond to public and agency review comments on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This scope of work assumes that one lengthy (over 20 pages) and substantive letter will be submitted by from Wanger Jones Helsley PC (or other law firm representing the neighbors), and that up to two additional short (under two pages) and non-substantive letters will be submitted, which can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 80 professional staff hours. The actual level of effort required to respond will depend on the length, detail, and DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

sophistication of the comments, in addition to the number of letters received. We reserve the right to reevaluate the effort level and request a scope amendment upon close of the public comment period.

The Final EIR will consist of the body of the Draft EIR, as revised based on comments received, and an additional section including all comments and responses. We assume one round of review of City staff comments on the Response to Comments and Administrative Final Focused EIR. We will submit the Administrative Final Focused EIR digitally for City review.

Task 5.2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Concurrent with delivery of the Final Focused EIR, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Rincon will prepare an MMRP in a format that complies with City requirements, consistent with CEQA Guidelines requirements. The MMRP will include a table that lists each mitigation measure, the agency responsible for each measure, when monitoring must occur, the frequency of monitoring, and criteria to determine compliance with the condition. For some issues that may depend on the details of future development design, mitigation measures will identify specific performance standards to be achieved, typical approaches to meeting the applicable criteria, and the point in time when documentation must be provided to and approved by the City. Where necessary, the MMRP will include post-construction monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed measures. The MMRP will include mitigation measures identified in the Focused EIR and its accompanying Initial Study. We assume one round of review of City staff comments on the MMRP.

Task 5.3: Final Focused EIR and Notice of Determination Rincon will respond to one round of City staff comments on the Administrative Final Focused EIR. Rincon will deliver a digital PDF copy of the Final Focused EIR to the City. Upon certification of the Final EIR and project approval, Rincon will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City to file with the County Clerk’s office. We assume the City will be responsible for payment of the County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees.

Task 6: Meetings and Public Hearings
During EIR preparation, key Rincon staff will attend up to two virtual meetings with staff (two hours in length each). These meetings would be scheduled at the discretion of the City. Rincon’s Project Manager and/or Principal-in-Charge will also attend and present the conclusions of the Focused EIR at one virtual Planning Commission and one virtual City Council hearing.

Assumptions
Rincon assumes the following:
 The City will conduct appropriate notification to all responsible agencies and to the public  One round of consolidated City comments will be provided on each deliverable  The Focused EIR will contain two technical chapters (Biological Resources and Cultural Resources) and an Effects Found Not to be Significant chapter; any additional technical chapters will require an amendment
 No built resources beyond the property listed above will be recorded and evaluated DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

 The results of the CHRIS search discussed in the three archaeological resources reports will be provided and a new CHRIS search will not be required
 There will be no public scoping meeting
 No project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from CDFW or RWQCB will be required
 The Focused EIR will rely on AB 52 consultation already completed by the City for the IS-MND  In addition to the no project alternative, two build alternatives will be presented to reduce potential impacts to historical resources
 One lengthy (over 20 pages) and substantive letter will be submitted by from Wanger Jones Helsley PC (or other law firm representing the neighbors), and up to two additional short (under two pages) and non-substantive letters will be submitted, which can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 80 professional staff hours
 The City will be responsible for payment of the County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees
 Rincon will not provide hard copies of any deliverables  Documents will not be formatted for ADA accessibility Estimated Timeline
Rincon has an excellent reputation for adhering to schedules and meeting milestones. Based on our project understanding and the analysis required Rincon proposes to adhere to a schedule that allows for completion of the environmental review process in approximately six to eight months depending on timing of our receipt of a complete and stable project description and plan set, City review times, and number and complexity of public comments.

1. Project Update and NOP. Rincon will schedule a project update meeting within one week of notice to proceed, and will submit the NOP within two weeks of project restart and receipt of any new necessary background and project information

2. Administrative Draft Focused EIR. Rincon will submit the Administrative Draft EIR within six weeks of end of the 30-day public scoping period.

3. Draft Focused EIR. The Public Review Draft EIR will be completed within three weeks of receipt of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If review of additional versions of the Administrative Draft EIR is required, Rincon will respond to comments on subsequent versions within one week, for an additional cost.

4. Final Focused EIR. The Administrative Draft Final EIR/Responses to Comments will be completed within three to six weeks after receipt of all written comments received during the review period, depending on the number and complexity of public comments received. We will submit the Final EIR/Responses to Comments and MMRP within two weeks of receipt of City comments on the draft responses.

Meetings and public hearings will be scheduled as needed during the process.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Cost Proposal
Rincon can complete the proposed work program for a cost of $76,115, an increase of $24,740 from the proposed IS-MND cost of $51,375. The revised cost is in addition to the work already completed for this project, under both the previous FEIR and IS-MND proposals. When added to the budget already expended for the revised IS-MND of $21,000, the total revised budget would be $97,115. We also recommend including an approximately 10 percent contingency (or $9,700), only to be released upon City approval. A breakdown of our cost by task is summarized in the table on the next page. All services would be provided on a time and expense reimbursement basis and will be billed in accordance with our standard fee schedule for professional services.

Thank you for considering Rincon for this assignment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions about this proposal or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Leslie Trejo, MUP
Project Manager
Phone: 510-984-6155
Email: [email protected]
Megan Jones, MPP
Principal-in-Charge
Phone: 831-920-5424
Email: [email protected]

DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 1 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

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

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

5.03. CONTRACTOR shall furnish, at its own expense, all materials, equipment, and personnel necessary to carry out the terms of this Agreement, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not use City premises, property (including equipment, instruments, or supplies) or personnel for any purpose other than in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. 1 Approved by the Pacific Grove City Council on March 2, 2022.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 2 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

6. PAYMENT CONDITIONS.

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

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

6.02. CONTRACTOR shall not receive reimbursement for travel.

7. TERMINATION.

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

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

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

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

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

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

9. INSURANCE.

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 3 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
Commercial general liability insurance, no less broad than Insurance Services Office (ISO) CG 00 01, including but not limited to premises and operations, including coverage for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, Personal Injury, Contractual Liability, Broadform Property Damage, Independent Contractors, Products/Completed Operations, with minimum limits: $1,000,000 per Occurrence; $2,000,000 General Aggregate; $2,000,000 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate. The required limits may be provided by a combination of General Liability Insurance and Commercial Excess or Umbrella Liability Insurance. If CONTRACTOR maintains higher limits than the specified minimum limits, City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by CONTRACTOR.
❑ Exemption/Modification (Justification attached; subject to approval).

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial general liability and automobile liability policies shall provide an endorsement naming the City of Pacific Grove, its officers, agents, and employees as Additional Insureds with respect to liability arising out of the CONTRACTOR’S work, including ongoing and completed operations, and shall further provide that DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 4 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
such insurance is primary insurance to any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City and that the insurance of the Additional Insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to a loss covered by the CONTRACTOR’S insurance. The required endorsement form for Commercial General Liability Additional Insured is ISO Form CG 20 10 11-85 or CG 20 10 10 01 in tandem with CG 20 37 10 01 (2000). The required endorsement form for Automobile Additional Insured endorsement is ISO Form CA 20 48 02 99.

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

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

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

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

10. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY.

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

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

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

10.04. Access to and Audit of Records. The City shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONTRACTOR and its subcontractors related to services provided under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 5 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
the City or as part of any audit of the City, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR CITY: FOR CONTRACTOR:

Alyson Hunter, AICP,
Community Development Dir.

Megan Jones, Principal
Name and Title Name and Title
300 Forest Avenue 2511 Garden Road, Suite C-250
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 Monterey, CA 93940
Address Address
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 6 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

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

15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 7 of 9
Updated 02/01/22

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

15.14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

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

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

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

15.18 Severability. If any of the provisions contained in the Contract are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Contract for any cause. If a part of this Contract is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Contract is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

This space is left blank, intentionally.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 8 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONTRACTOR

By: Rincon Consultants, Inc.

City Mayor Contractor’s Business Name*
Date:

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

Department Head
Date:

Name and Title

Date:

By:

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

City Attorney Name and Title
Date:

2 Date:

Approved as to Fiscal Provisions
By:

Finance
Date:

Approved as to Liability Provisions 3
By:

Risk Management Date:

City Agreement Number: ______________________________.

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F 3/3/2022
Megan Jones Principal
3/3/2022
3/3/2022
3/3/2022
3/3/2022
3/3/2022
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 9 of 9
Updated 02/01/22
*INSTRUCTIONS: If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, including limited liability and non-profit corporations, the full legal name of the corporation shall be set forth above together with the signatures of two specified officers. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, the name of the partnership shall be set forth above together with the signature of a partner who has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the partnership. If CONTRACTOR is contracting in an individual capacity, the individual shall set forth the name of the business, if any, and shall personally sign the Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 1 1 G a r d e n R o ad , S u i te C - 250
Monterey, California 939 40
831 3 3 3 0 3 1 0
i n f o @ ri n c o n c o n s u l t a n ts .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s January 14,2022
Project No: 21-11891
Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
Community Development Department
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
via email: [email protected]
Subject: Scope Amendment Request for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California Dear Ms. Hunter:

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

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

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

EXHIBIT A DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

(DPR) forms for the site. The memorandum will also make recommendations related to impacts to historical resources and mitigation measures. Should the analysis of additional structures (beyond the adobe structure) be required, a change order would be necessary.

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

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

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

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

Biological Resources. Rincon conducted a peer review of the Biological Evaluation prepared for the project site in June 2020 and concluded that additional evaluation of impacts to biological resources would be necessary to sufficiently support the CEQA analysis. Rincon will use the existing Biological Evaluation to provide background information on the project site and support the biological resources analysis. In addition, to confirm no new special-status species have been recorded in the project vicinity Rincon will prepare a desktop literature and agency database review. Rincon will review project plans, aerial imagery, agency databases (i.e., California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database, California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Information for Planning and Conservation database) as well as other relevant background information for context and understanding of the biological concerns related to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

Cumulative Impacts. The IS-MND will include a discussion of cumulative impacts, relying on a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

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

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

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

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

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

4. Final Initial Study and MMRP. The Administrative Final IS-MND and MMRP will be completed within approximately three to six weeks of receipt of all public comments, depending on the DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

number and complexity of public comments received. We will submit the Final IS-MND and MMRP within two weeks of receipt of City comments on the draft responses.

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

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

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Leslie Trejo, MUP
Project Manager
Phone: 510-984-6155
Email: [email protected]
Megan Jones, MPP
Principal-in-Charge
Phone: 831-920-5424
Email: [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Amendment #1

1661 Sunset Drive IS-MND Cost Estimate
21-11891 1661 Sunset IS-MND Rate Hours Labor Budget Total Budget Task 1: Cultural Resources Peer Reviews 68.00 12,104.00 12,104.00 Principal I 250.00 8.00 2,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 22.00 4,730.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 20.00 2,700.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 2.00 270.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 2.00 196.00
Task 2: Administrative Draft Initial Study 93.00 13,516.00 13,516.00 Principal I 250.00 5.00 1,250.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 3.00 645.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 3.00 585.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 4.00 656.00
Planner IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Biologist III 152.00 12.00 1,824.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 8.00 1,080.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 8.00 1,080.00
Planner I 120.00 30.00 3,600.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 6.00 588.00
Task 3: Public Review Draft Initial Study 28.00 4,402.00 4,402.00 Principal I 250.00 3.00 750.00
Senior Archaeologist II 195.00 4.00 780.00
Biologist IV 164.00 2.00 328.00
Planner IV 164.00 7.00 1,148.00
Planner I 120.00 10.00 1,200.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 2.00 196.00
Task 4: Finial Initial Study and MMRP 78.00 12,874.00 12,874.00 Principal I 250.00 9.00 2,250.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 4.00 860.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 8.00 1,560.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 10.00 1,640.00
Planner IV 164.00 21.00 3,444.00
Planner I 120.00 24.00 2,880.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Task 5: Meetings and Public Hearings 17.00 3,355.00 3,355.00 Principal I 250.00 6.00 1,500.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 1.00 215.00
Planner IV 164.00 10.00 1,640.00
Project Management 26.00 5,124.00 5,124.00
Principal I 250.00 10.00 2,500.00
Planner IV 164.00 16.00 2,624.00
Project Total 310.00 51,375.00 51,375.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 7FEFF862-413D-4B2E-8865-850D945B9E7F DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 1 of 10

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

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

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

2. PAYMENTS BY CITY. City shall pay the CONTRACTOR in accordance with the payment provisions set forth in Exhibit A, subject to the limitations set forth in this Agreement. The total amount payable by City to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall not exceed the sum of $ 92,731.00.1

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

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

Exhibit A: Proposal to Prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California (dated September 13, 2021)

5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

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

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

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

6. PAYMENT CONDITIONS.
1 Approved by the Pacific Grove City Council on November 17, 2021.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 2 of 10

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

If not otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR may submit such invoice monthly or at the completion of each phase of the project, as provided on page 16 of the proposal, but in any event, not later than 30 days after completion of services. The invoice shall set forth the amounts claimed by CONTRACTOR for the previous period, together with an itemized basis for the amounts claimed, and such other information pertinent to the invoice as the City may require. The Contract Administrator or his or her designee shall certify the invoice, either in the requested amount or in such other amount as the City approves in conformity with this Agreement, and shall promptly submit such invoice to the City Auditor-Controller for payment. The City Auditor-Controller shall pay the amount certified within 30 days of receiving the certified invoice.

6.02. CONTRACTOR shall not receive reimbursement for travel.

7. TERMINATION.

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

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

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

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

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

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

9. INSURANCE.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 3 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required policies are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, CONTRACTOR shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should CONTRACTOR fail to immediately DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 4 of 10
procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure such insurance at CONTRACTOR’s sole cost and expense.

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

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

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

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

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

10. RECORDS AND CONFIDENTIALITY.

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

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

10.03. Maintenance of Records. CONTRACTOR shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and City rules and regulations related to services performed under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain such records for a period of at least three years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 5 of 10
to this Agreement is pending at the end of the three year period, then CONTRACTOR shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 6 of 10
FOR CITY: FOR CONTRACTOR:

Alyson Hunter, AICP,
Community Development Dir. Megan Jones, Principal
Name and Title Name and Title
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950 437 Figueroa Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Address Address
(831) 648-3192 (831) 333-0310
Phone Phone

15. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 7 of 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

15.14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

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

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

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

15.18 Severability. If any of the provisions contained in the Contract are held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired thereby. Limitations of liability and indemnities shall survive termination of the Contract for any cause. If a part of this Contract is valid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of this Contract is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 8 of 10
This space is left blank, intentionally.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 9 of 10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and CONTRACTOR have executed this Agreement as of the day and year written below.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONTRACTOR
By: Rincon Consultants, Inc.

City Mayor Contractor’s Business Name*
Date:

By:

By:

Department Head
(Signature of Chair, President, or
Vice-President)*
Date:

Name and Title
Date:

By:

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

City Attorney Name and Title
Date:
2 Date:

Approved as to Fiscal Provisions
By:

Finance
Date:

Approved as to Liability Provisions 3
By:

Risk Management
Date:

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 11/22/2021
Jennifer Haddow, VP
CFO
12/2/2021
12/3/2021
12/3/2021
12/3/2021
12/3/2021
12/3/2021
DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C 10 of 10
*INSTRUCTIONS: If CONTRACTOR is a corporation, including limited liability and non-profit corporations, the full legal name of the corporation shall be set forth above together with the signatures of two specified officers. If CONTRACTOR is a partnership, the name of the partnership shall be set forth above together with the signature of a partner who has authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the partnership. If CONTRACTOR is contracting in an individual capacity, the individual shall set forth the name of the business, if any, and shall personally sign the Agreement.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C Rincon Consultants, Inc.
2 5 1 1 G a r d e n R o ad , S u i te C - 250
Monterey, California 939 40
831 3 3 3 0 3 1 0
i n f o @ ri n c o n c o n s u l t a n ts .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s September 13, 2021
Project No: 21-11891
Alyson Hunter, Senior Planner
City of Pacific Grove
Community Development Department
300 Forest Avenue, 2nd Floor
Pacific Grove, California 93950
via email: [email protected]
Subject: Proposal to Prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project, Pacific Grove, California
Dear Ms. Hunter:

The City of Pacific Grove is seeking assistance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for a proposed residential development project at 1661 Sunset Drive. The project involves the demolition of an existing residence on APN 007-041-035, a merger of this parcel with adjacent parcel APN 007-041-033, and construction of a 5,912 square foot single family residence on APN 007- 041-033. The City prepared an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the project, which was adopted by the City Council on August 25, 2021. Based on concerns raised in a letter from Wanger Jones Helsley PC dated August 12, 2021, the City has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that focuses on biological and cultural resources. To that end, Rincon Consultants, Inc. has provided this proposal to prepare a Focused EIR for the project. We are enthusiastic about the opportunity to continue working with the City and have assembled a team of highly skilled environmental science and planning professionals who combine extensive technical qualifications and knowledge of CEQA with many years of experience.

At Rincon, we are proud of our team’s ability to work effectively with City staff, decision-makers, and community groups to develop and implement innovative approaches and solutions to planning and environmental issues. We believe that our experience with CEQA statewide, our experience on development projects specifically in the Monterey Bay area, and our existing relationship with City of Pacific Grove staff are critical and give us a unique understanding of and sensitivity to the range of issues that will be important to the success of this project.

Leading the team will be Megan Jones, Principal. She has over 16 years of experience in environmental planning and project management and has worked on multiple projects within the city and on the greater Monterey Peninsula. Leslie Trejo, MUP will serve as Project Manager in charge of day-to-day oversight and will be the City’s primary contact. Additionally, Sherri Miller will oversee the biological analysis, Shannon Carmack will oversee the CEQA-required analysis for historical resources, and Hannah Haas will oversee the analysis for archaeological resources. Staff resumes and firm qualifications are available upon request.

This proposal includes: (1) our proposed work scope; (2) our proposed schedule; and (3) our cost estimate.

Exhibit A
DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Scope of Work
Rincon will prepare a Focused EIR for the 1661 Sunset Drive Project. The Focused EIR will, to the extent practicable, rely on existing environmental documentation and technical studies prepared for the site.

Our scope of work for preparation of the Focused EIR will include the following tasks.

Task 1:Kickoff and Notice of Preparation
Task 1.1: Kickoff Meeting
Rincon will prepare for and participate in a kickoff meeting with City staff, which is assumed to occur via conference call. This meeting will allow an opportunity to thoroughly discuss the project description, approach to environmental evaluation, existing conditions and baseline for the analysis, and community concerns regarding the project that have surfaced to date. We will also use this opportunity to collect any relevant project or background information not already transmitted.

Task 1.2: Notice of Preparation
Rincon will prepare a draft Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for City staff to review. The NOP alerts responsible agencies and the public about the upcoming CEQA document, so they can contribute their input on the scope of the study. The NOP will consist of a one- to two-page notice with a brief project description, a map of the project area, and instructions for submitting comments. Rincon assumes one round of review for the NOP. Rincon also assumes the City will file the NOP and alert applicable responsible agencies and the public. We have not included attendance at a scoping meeting because one is not required for this project; however, we can include one for an additional fee.

Task 2: Cultural Resources Peer Reviews
Task 2.1: Historical Resources Peer Review and Evaluation A historic resources evaluation was prepared by Anthony Kirk in December of 2018, which included an evaluation of the existing on-site residence. The City received a comment letter from Kent Seavey in August 2021 that included a peer review of the 2018 report. The Seavey letter provided several comments, including the suggestion that a potentially historic adobe studio was located on the project site, but was not evaluated. A Rincon qualified architectural historian will review the December 2018 report completed by Anthony Kirk and the August 2021 Kent Seavey letter, to identify potential deficiencies in the original report and update the historic analysis accordingly. An update/response memorandum will be prepared to address deficiencies, if any, from the original report and to strengthen the cultural resources analysis defensibility for the EIR. The memorandum will also serve to address concerns outlined in the Seavey letter, where appropriate. Additional analysis is anticipated to include an evaluation of the adobe structure and preparation California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for the site. The memorandum will also make recommendations related to impacts to historical resources and mitigation measures. Should the analysis of additional structures (beyond the adobe structure) be required, a change order would be necessary.

Task 2.2: Archaeological Resources Peer Review and Evaluation A Phase I archaeological resources assessment was prepared by Patricia Paramoure Archaeological Consulting in June 2020 and a Phase II resource evaluation was prepared by Patricia Paramoure and DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Charles Mikulik in March 2021. Rincon proposes to complete a peer review of these documents focused on the adequacy of analysis and soundness of conclusions of the reports and on the sufficiency of the reports to support CEQA analysis. A response memorandum will be prepared outlining any concerns and recommending revisions and/or additional work to resolve identified concerns. If deemed necessary and at the discretion of the City, Rincon can submit a scope augmentation to conduct additional work needed to fully address archaeological resources.

Task 3:Administrative Draft Focused EIR
The Administrative Draft Focused EIR will include the following key sections.

Executive Summary
The Focused EIR will contain a summary of the proposed project and associated environmental consequences. This information will be presented in tabular format to simplify review by decisionmakers and the public. This section will identify each potential environmental impact, the level of significance of each impact, mitigation measures required and the residual impacts after mitigation. The summary will also note areas of known controversy and an assessment of the alternatives reviewed and their associated impacts. The summary will also include identification of the environmentally superior alternative and the rationale for its selection as such.

Introduction, Project Description, and Environmental Setting The Focused EIR will provide introductory sections that lay the groundwork for and summarize the substantive analysis to follow. The Introduction will describe the purpose and legal authority of the study, the project objectives, and will provide a discussion of lead, responsible and trustee agencies, if any. The Project Description section will provide a detailed summary of the proposed project including text, tables, and graphics to facilitate a thorough understanding of the proposed project.

The Environmental Setting will provide a general description of the geographic character of the project vicinity at the time of NOP distribution. The setting will be based on existing data sources, including the City’s General Plan, LCP, and ordinances, and other relevant environmental documents prepared during recent years, supplemented with information from existing technical studies.

Environmental Impact Analysis
The main body of the Focused EIR will consist of the assessment of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The setting portion of each impact section will describe the applicable environmental conditions of the project area.

If existing data does not allow definitive quantification, reasonable assumptions will be used to qualitatively forecast potential impacts. Cumulative impacts will be discussed within this analysis, but at a lesser level of detail than the project impacts. Mitigation measures may include a range of design measures and programs. All mitigation measures will be presented in wording that can be directly applied to the project and will include monitoring requirements.

The impact analysis section will include a statement of the significance thresholds that were used to determine if an impact would have the potential to result in a significant environmental effect. Impacts of the proposed project when compared to existing conditions in the area will be identified, as will cumulative impacts resulting from regional growth.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

The impact analysis section will describe the level of significance after mitigation. Conditions where the proposed mitigation measures would not reduce the identified impacts to a less-than-significant level will be clearly identified. Secondary impacts of mitigation measures will also be discussed. This section will also note whether impacts related to each issue are significant and unavoidable, significant but mitigable, less than significant, or beneficial.

We assume the Focused EIR will contain two technical chapters (Biological Resources and Cultural Resources) and an Effects Found Not to be Significant chapter, as described below. If, during the analysis, it is determined that any additional resource areas warrant consideration in a full technical chapter, a scope amendment will be required.

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

Upon completion of the desktop analysis, Rincon will recommend any additional species-specific or protocol level studies necessary. The biological resources analysis will rely on information in the existing studies in lieu of a reconnaissance site visit and will not include seasonally timed or protocol surveys for rare plants or wildlife and does not include a formal jurisdictional delineation.

This scope of work assumes no project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be required. The impact analysis will be based on habitat assessment for species known to occur in the region. Rincon will summarize the findings of the literature review and desktop analysis in the focused EIR with an impacts analysis and recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the proposed project to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources. Rincon understands the project site contains a potential historical resource and an archaeological resource. Using the previous cultural resources documentation prepared for the project, the peer reviews included under Task 2 above, as well as AB 52 consultation conducted by the City as part of the IS-MND, Rincon will identify potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources and present mitigation measures that could reduce impacts to the extent feasible. If Task 2 identifies that additional work is necessary, such additional work (whether completed by Rincon or another firm) will be incorporated into the EIR section.

Effects Found Not to be Significant. This section will address all other CEQA Appendix G resource topics, utilizing the analysis in the existing IS-MND, bolstered where appropriate. This scope of work does not include a site visit or technical modeling for air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, or transportation. Rather, the existing IS-MND discussion will be bolstered to DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

sufficiently address the CEQA Appendix G threshold questions and to address concerns raised in comments from Wanger Jones Helsley PC on August 12, 2021.

We assume one round of review of City comments for the Administrative Draft Focused EIR.

Alternatives
The Alternatives section will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 The purpose of this section will be to promote informed decision-making and to evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives, with an emphasis on alternatives capable of reducing significant impacts identified in the environmental analysis. This section will identify the “environmentally superior alternative.” If the No Project Alternative is determined to be environmentally superior, the EIR will identify the environmentally superior alternative among the remaining scenarios. Rincon assumes two “build” alternatives will be presented to reduce potential impacts to historical resources, potentially including construction of a new residence on the same footprint as the existing residence, and a preservation alternative. Analysis of these two alternatives will be supported by Rincon’s qualified architectural history staff.

Other CEQA-Required Sections
Also included in the Focused EIR will be other sections required by CEQA, such as table of contents, references, persons contacted, list of preparers, and summary of potential growth-inducing and significant irreversible effects.

Task 4: Draft Focused EIR
After receiving City comments regarding the Administrative Draft EIR and meeting with City staff virtually to review the comments, Rincon will produce the Public Draft EIR. Rincon will respond to one round of City staff comments on the Administrative Draft EIR and prepare the Screencheck Draft EIR, with revisions shown in track changes. Upon receiving clearance from the City, Rincon will accept revisions and provide a clean digital (pdf) version of the Draft EIR suitable for posting on the City’s website. Rincon will prepare all required notices for the Focused EIR, including the Notice of Completion.

We assume the City will handle all notification to responsible agencies and the public and will file the notices with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. This scope assumes the City will mail the documents to relevant agencies and interested citizens.

Task 5: Final Focused EIR
The final stages of the Focused EIR process involve responding to comments, preparing the Administrative Final Focused EIR and Final Focused EIR, and holding public hearings and final editorial tasks. At this point, the discretionary permit applications and the Final Focused EIR will be brought together for final public and decision-maker scrutiny to render official decisions regarding the proposed project. Through this process, final changes and policy decisions concerning the project are made. Our work effort regarding this task is delineated below.

Task 5.1: Response to Comments/Administrative Final Focused EIR Rincon staff, in coordination with City staff, will respond to public and agency review comments on the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. This scope of work assumes that one lengthy (over 20 pages) and substantive letter will be submitted by from Wanger Jones Helsley PC (or DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

other law firm representing the neighbors), and that up to two additional short (under two pages) and non-substantive letters will be submitted, which can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 80 professional staff hours. The actual level of effort required to respond will depend on the length, detail, and sophistication of the comments, in addition to the number of letters received. We reserve the right to reevaluate the effort level and request a scope amendment upon close of the public comment period.

The Final EIR will consist of the body of the Draft EIR, as revised based on comments received, and an additional section including all comments and responses. We assume one round of review of City staff comments on the Response to Comments and Administrative Final Focused EIR. We will submit the Administrative Final Focused EIR digitally for City review.

Task 5.2: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Concurrent with delivery of the Final Focused EIR, and in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Rincon will prepare an MMRP in a format that complies with City requirements, consistent with CEQA Guidelines requirements. The MMRP will include a table that lists each mitigation measure, the agency responsible for each measure, when monitoring must occur, the frequency of monitoring, and criteria to determine compliance with the condition. For some issues that may depend on the details of future development design, mitigation measures will identify specific performance standards to be achieved, typical approaches to meeting the applicable criteria, and the point in time when documentation must be provided to and approved by the City. Where necessary, the MMRP will include post-construction monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed measures. The MMRP will include mitigation measures identified in the Focused EIR and its accompanying Initial Study. We assume one round of review of City staff comments on the MMRP.

Task 5.3: Final Focused EIR and Notice of Determination Rincon will respond to one round of City staff comments on the Administrative Final Focused EIR. Rincon will deliver a digital PDF copy of the Final Focused EIR to the City. Upon certification of the Final EIR and project approval, Rincon will prepare a Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City to file with the County Clerk’s office. We assume the City will be responsible for payment of the County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees.

Task 6: Meetings and Public Hearings
During EIR preparation, key Rincon staff will attend up to two virtual meetings with staff (two hours in length each). These meetings would be scheduled at the discretion of the City. Rincon’s Project Manager and/or Principal-in-Charge will also attend and present the conclusions of the Focused EIR at one virtual Planning Commission and one virtual City Council hearing.

Assumptions
Rincon assumes the following:
▪ The City will conduct appropriate notification to all responsible agencies and to the public ▪ One round of consolidated City comments will be provided on each deliverable ▪ The Focused EIR will contain two technical chapters (Biological Resources and Cultural Resources) and an Effects Found Not to be Significant chapter; any additional technical chapters will require an amendment
DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

▪ There will be no public scoping meeting
▪ No project disturbance will occur within a stream channel and no permits from CDFW or RWQCB will be required
▪ The Focused EIR will rely on AB 52 consultation already completed by the City for the IS-MND ▪ In addition to the no project alternative, two build alternatives will be presented to reduce potential impacts to historical resources
▪ One lengthy (over 20 pages) and substantive letter will be submitted by from Wanger Jones Helsley PC (or other law firm representing the neighbors), and up to two additional short (under two pages) and non-substantive letters will be submitted, which can be adequately responded to in a maximum of 80 professional staff hours
▪ The City will be responsible for payment of the County Clerk and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees
▪ Rincon will not provide hard copies of any deliverables Estimated Timeline
Rincon has an excellent reputation for adhering to schedules and meeting milestones. Based on our project understanding and the analysis required Rincon proposes to adhere to a schedule that allows for completion of the environmental review process in approximately six to eight months depending on timing of our receipt of a complete and stable project description and plan set, City review times, and number and complexity of public comments.

1. Kickoff and NOP. Rincon will schedule a kickoff meeting within one week of notice to proceed, and will submit the NOP within two weeks of project kickoff and receipt of all necessary background and project information

2. Administrative Draft Focused EIR. Rincon will submit the Administrative Draft EIR within six weeks of end of the 30-day public scoping period.

3. Draft Focused EIR. The Public Review Draft EIR will be completed within three weeks of receipt of City comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. If review of additional versions of the Administrative Draft EIR is required, Rincon will respond to comments on subsequent versions within one week for an additional cost.

4. Final Focused EIR. The Administrative Draft Final EIR/Responses to Comments will be completed within three to six weeks after receipt of all written comments received during the review period, depending on the number and complexity of public comments received. We will submit the Final EIR/Responses to Comments and MMRP within two weeks of receipt of City comments on the draft responses.

Meetings and public hearings will be scheduled as needed during the process.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

Cost Proposal
Rincon can complete the proposed work program for a cost not to exceed $84,231. We also recommend including an approximately 10 percent contingency (or $8,500), only to be released upon City approval.

A breakdown of our cost by task is summarized in the table on the next page. All services would be provided on a time and expense reimbursement basis and will be billed in accordance with our standard fee schedule for professional services.

Thank you for considering Rincon for this assignment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions about this proposal or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Leslie Trejo, MUP
Project Manager
Phone: 510-984-6155
Email: [email protected]
Megan Jones, MPP
Principal-in-Charge
Phone: 831-920-5424
Email: [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C City of Pacific Grove
1661 Sunset Drive Project

1661 Sunset Focused EIR
Cost Estimate
Task Rate Hours Labor Budget
Task 1: Kickoff and Notice of Preparation 19.00 3,336.00 Principal I 250.00 4.00 1,000.00
Planner IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 2.00 270.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 1.00 98.00
Task 2: Cultural Resources Peer Reviews 68.00 12,074.00 Principal I 250.00 8.00 2,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 22.00 4,730.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 20.00 2,700.00
GIS/CADD Specialist I 120.00 2.00 240.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 2.00 196.00
Task 3: Administrative Draft EIR 200.50 30,997.00
Principal I 250.00 20.00 5,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 8.00 1,720.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 4.00 780.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 18.00 2,952.00
Planner IV 164.00 27.00 4,428.00
Biologist III 152.00 30.00 4,560.00
Archaeologist II 135.00 16.00 2,160.00
GIS/CADD Specialist II 135.00 16.00 2,160.00
Planner I 120.00 48.00 5,760.00
Technical Editor 120.00 7.00 840.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 6.50 637.00
Task 4: Draft Focused EIR 74.00 10,864.00
Principal I 250.00 6.00 1,500.00
Senior Biologist I 179.00 4.00 716.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 10.00 1,640.00
Planner IV 164.00 16.00 2,624.00
Planner I 120.00 28.00 3,360.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Production Specialist I 98.00 8.00 784.00
Task 5: Final Focused EIR 112.00 18,266.00
Principal I 250.00 12.00 3,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 10.00 2,150.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 4.00 780.00
Archaeologist IV 164.00 12.00 1,968.00
Planner IV 164.00 28.00 4,592.00
Biologist III 152.00 8.00 1,216.00
Planner I 120.00 36.00 4,320.00
Technical Editor 120.00 2.00 240.00
Task 6: Meetings and Public Hearings 42.00 8,694.00
Principal I 250.00 16.00 4,000.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 215.00 6.00 1,290.00
Senior Biologist II 195.00 4.00 780.00
Planner IV 164.00 16.00 2,624.00
Project Total 515.50 84,231.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: EB8C4C9A-A5EE-40A1-A72F-3526C4C554D0 DocuSign Envelope ID: A4755B77-46B1-414E-9F09-EF4AE9C7F22C

REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE 1661 SUNSET DRIVE

PROJECT

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

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

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

B. The City will incur various costs and expenses including preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (focused EIR) for the Proposed Project.

The City has retained an Environmental Planning consultant, Rincon Consultants Inc., to assist in the analysis of environmental clearance documents for conformance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the preparation of a focused EIR IS/MND and attendant notifications, reports and presentations, and attendance at relevant meetings, associated with the Proposed Project.

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

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

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

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

Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489

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

B. The total amount of Eligible Costs is estimated to be $106,815 including a 10 percent contingency fee. This includes reimbursement for contract expenses, fees and direct consultant costs associated with contract or project management.

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

3. PAYMENT OF ELIGIBLE COSTS
A. Upon execution of this Agreement, Applicant shall deposit with City the sum equivalent to $47,974 in cash or other immediately available funds (“Payment). This Payment is in addition to a prior Payment of $58,841, the balance of which shall be transferred to this Agreement. The Payment(s) will be retained as a "Deposit" in satisfaction of Applicant's obligation to pay Applicant's Share of Eligible Costs.

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

C. City shall withdraw from the Payment and Additional Payment, if any, as necessary to cover the Eligible Costs. On a monthly basis, City shall provide written notice to all Applicant documenting: (1) the amount of Eligible Costs Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489 Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489 Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

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

Applicant shall maintain in force all licenses, approvals, and agreements, the loss of which could have a Material Adverse Effect. Applicant shall provide to City a Certificate of Good Standing or Certificate of Existence from the appropriate authority, submitted within ten days upon request by City certifying that Applicant is in good standing as a limited partnership in the State of California.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Pacific Grove
Attention: John Kuehl, Interim Director Community Development Dept. 300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, California 93950
Phone: 831-648-3192
Fax: 831-648-3184
Email: [email protected]
DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489 Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

to Elstob Family Investments addressed as follows:

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

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

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

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

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. The Effective Date is the date that the final signatory executes the Agreement. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date. [Signatures on following pages]
DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489 Focused EIR
Reimbursement Agreement
Final 05/11/2022

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

ATTEST:
________________________

SANDRA KANDELL
City Clerk
"CITY"
_________________________

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

ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LP
a California limited partnership
Dated: __________________________________
By: _____________________________________
(Signature)
Name: Mark Elstob_________________________
Title: General Partner_______________________
By: _____________________________________
(Signature)
Name: __________________________________
Title: ___________________________________
Local Address: 415 Crocker Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: (925) 915-9338__________________
Fax: ____________________________________
"ELSTOB FAMILY INVESTMENTS"
DocuSign Envelope ID: A411A75A-A545-4459-AC6B-96BAE120C489 5/13/2022
5/23/2022
AMENDMENT #3
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH Rincon
WHEREAS, the City of Pacific Grove (“City”) and Rincon Consultants Inc. (“Contractor”) entered into a Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) on December 3, 2021; and
WHEREAS said Agreement was amended on March 3 and May 11, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor desire to amend certain terms of the Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

A. The Agreement is amended as follows:

3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement is from December 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by both CONTRACTOR and City and with City signing last, and CONTRACTOR may not commence work before City signs this Agreement
B. All other terms of the Agreement as amended remain the same.

Dated: ____________________
Dated: _____________________

Dated: _____________________
________________________________
Megan Jones, Principal
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
________________________________
Ben Harvey, City Manager
City of Pacific Grove
________________________________
Tori Hannah, Administrative Service
Director, Finance & Risk Management
City of Pacific Grove

Dated: ____________________
________________________________
Bill Peake, Mayor
City of Pacific Grove
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: February 1, 2023
SUBJECT: Appointment to Historic Resources Committee
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the appointment of J. Bicket to Historic Resources Committee ending January 31, 2025.

DISCUSSION
The appointment of J. Bicket fills a vacancy on the Historic Resources Committee.

City 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. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified and talented residents willing to serve on City committees.

The term for HRC positions are 2 years as this is a non-Charter committee.

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.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Redacted App

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: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: September 8, October 13, November 10, and December 8, 2022
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.

Attachments
Approved PC Minutes 09-08-22
Approved PC Minutes 10-13-22
Approved PC Minutes 11-10-22
Approved PC Minutes 12-08-22 (Regular Meeting)
Approved PC Minutes 12-08-22 (Special Meeting)
1 PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, Sept. 8, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

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

Commissioners Present: Aeschliman, Beck, Fredrickson, Lilley, Murphy, Nodzenski, Sawyer.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –
Chair Lilley asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.

On a motion by Secretary Sawyer, seconded by Commissioner Aeschliman, the agenda was unanimously approved on a roll call vote. (7-0)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Secretary Sawyer reported that she attended an Institute for Local Government Webinar on Sustained Recreation; and attended a Terner Center and Casita Coalition presentation Aug. 26th dealing with ADU production and Equity.

B. Chair Lilley noted that he attended the Pacific Grove City Council meeting on August 17th, at which he spoke as a private citizen supporting the Request for Proposals for the Focused General Plan Update, including updates to the zoning code and maps, objective design and development standards, and associated environmental review.

C. Community Development Department (CDD) Director Anastacia Wyatt announced that she toured local Passive Houses (i.e., energy efficient) on August 27th, attended the National Community Development Association Conference in Minneapolis in June, and toured an 86-unit affordable passive house development.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti had no announcements.

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

Jill Kleiss, Tony Ciani, Gabriel Sanders, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and an unidentified individual.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION – None

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the Aug. 11, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the minutes of the Aug. 11, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 2 On a motion by Commissioner Aeschliman, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the consent agenda was unanimously approved as presented on a roll call vote. (7-0)

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP), Variance (VAR) & Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0092 for 829 Ocean View Blvd.

From: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-3-PGR / High Density Residential (10-20 du/ac)
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities Recommendation Action: Forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission, subject to findings, conditions of approval and a Class 1 CEQA exemptions.

Reference: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
Chair Lilly reported an ex parte communication regarding this project (Sarah Boyle, Vice Chair of the Architectural Review Board). After receiving an oral report by Associate Planner Othon, and testimony from the owner (Keith Erickson), Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment: Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Tony Ciani, Lisa Ciani, and Marie Sarah. Chair Lilley closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

After discussion, Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, to approve the project with an added condition to require the proposed copper gutters and downspouts be coated/lined and to modify Condition No. 12 to insert the word “not” (The fascia beneath the deck railing shall not be segmented.). On a roll call vote, the motion to approve the project as amended was approved. (6-1; Sawyer opposed) B. Appeal of Architectural Permit and Tree Permit with Development (AP/TPD) No. 22-0108, 1166 Presidio Boulevard, Pacific Grove (APN 007-591-013) From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / Medium Density Residential (9.7 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction of Existing Structures and Facilities
Recommendation Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny the appeal, find the project categorically exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15302, and approve the Architectural Permit and Tree Permit with Development (AP-TPD 22-0108) subject to the findings and conditions of approval.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Chair Lilly introduced the item and reported an ex parte communication regarding this project (Sarah Boyle, Vice Chair of the Architectural Review Board). After receiving an oral report by Contract Planner Sidor, testimony from the appellant’s attorney (Mitchell Abdallah), and testimony from the applicant’s designer (Steven Krebs) and the owners (Matt Meyers and Mimi Meyers), Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and Inge Lorentzen Daumer provided public comment. Chair Lilley closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and opened the 3 opportunity for rebuttal from the appellant’s attorney (Mitchell Abdallah), owner (Matt Meyers), applicant (Craig Riddell), and appellant (Catherine Jimenez). Chair Lilley then returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

After discussion, Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, to deny the appeal and approve the project. Commissioner Beck recommended a friendly amendment to have the applicant submit a revised application form to accurately reflect the project description and plans and to re-evaluate the trees for removal, and this amendment was accepted by both Commissioners Fredrickson and Murphy. Commissioner Aeschliman then recommended a friendly amendment to eliminate the second story deck, and this amendment was accepted by both Commissioners Fredrickson and Murphy. On a roll call vote, the motion as amended was unanimously approved. (7-0)

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Report Regarding Amendment of PGMC Chapter 23.45 – Prohibition of Timeshares From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report from staff regarding an amendment to Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Chapter 23.45 – Prohibition of Timeshares.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Staff did not provide a report at this meeting. No individuals provided public comment. No further action taken.

B. Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director CDD Director Wyatt presented a staff update. Chair Lilley opened the floor to questions from Commissioners and to public comment. The following individual provided public comment:

Inge Lorentzen Daumer. Chair Lilley then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for further questions and discussion. No further action taken.

C. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
4 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Secretary Sawyer and Vice Chair Murphy presented a brief oral report. No individuals provided public comment. No further action taken.

D. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Planning Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on activities of the Planning Subcommittee.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Chair Lilley presented an overview of the subcommittee’s activities of the past year. No individuals provided public comment. No further action taken.

E. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Parklets Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on activities of the Parklets Subcommittee.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Secretary Sawyer presented a report and provided an update for future activities of the subcommittee. The following individual provided public comment: Inge Lorentzen Daumer. No further action taken.

10. NEW BUSINESS – None

11. PRESENTATIONS – None

12. NEXT MEETING – October 13, 2022

13. ADJOURNMENT - By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 pm. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, October 13, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

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

Commissioners Present: Aeschliman, Beck, Murphy, Nodzenski, Sawyer.

Commissioners Absent: Chair Lilley, Fredrickson

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –
Vice Chair Murphy asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.

Vice Chair Murphy recommended continuing Items 9B (Draft Parklet Program Manual), 9E (Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Planning Subcommittee), 10A (Report regarding Proposed Revisions to Committee Policies and Procedures), and 10B (Discussion regarding Hotel Parking Requirements) to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting.

On a motion by Vice Chair Murphy, seconded by Secretary Sawyer, the agenda was unanimously approved as amended (i.e., Items 9B, 9E, 10A, and 10B were continued to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting) on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Fredrickson absent)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Vice Chair Murphy announced he wished to call up Item 8C from the September 29, 2022, Historic Resources Committee regular meeting – Historic Determination (HD) 22-0255 for 1352 Lighthouse Avenue (i.e., the NOAA building). Vice Chair Murphy opened the floor to public comment and the following individuals provided public comment: Anthony Ciani and Lisa Ciani. Vice Chair Murphy then closed public comment and returned the item to the Commission for further questions and discussion.

The Planning Commission voted unanimously to call up HD 22-0255 on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Fredrickson absent).

B. Commission Liaison Sidor announced that housing staff hosted a Virtual Community Workshop on October 6, 2022, regarding housing placement. He also announced the receipt of correspondence regarding the proposed skate park and George Washington Park, stolen political signage, the Architectural Review Board decision regarding 176 Central Avenue, and the Pacific Grove Hotel project.
2 4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti had no announcements.

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

Cor Lageweg, Lisa Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Vince Alfait, and Jill Kleiss.

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION – None

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION- None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element and General Plan Update
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Sawyer commented on the Housing Element Advisory Committee meeting on September 26, 2022. Committee members were introduced to the Balancing Act tool. The following individuals provided public comment: Lisa Ciani and Tony Ciani. Vice Chair Murphy then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for further discussion. No further action taken.

B. Draft Parklet Program Manual
From: Laurel O’Halloran, Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: Commercial
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Provide feedback to Staff on the draft Parklet Program Manual
Reference: Laurel O’Halloran, Planner
Item continued to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting. 3 C. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Parklets Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Parklets Subcommittee.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Sawyer provided an oral report. Vice Chair Murphy opened the floor to public comment and the following individuals provided public comment: Julie Vivolo Davis, Jenny McMurdo, Anthony Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Lisa Ciani, and Kim Akeman. Vice Chair Murphy then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for further questions and discussion.

Commissioner Aeschliman made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to send a letter regarding Parklet subcommittee progress and timelines to the City Council. The motion was unanimously approved as presented on a roll call vote. (5-0-2; Lilley and Fredrickson absent) D. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee
From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral and written report on activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Sawyer reported ex parte communication with Lisa Ciani, Tony Ciani and Tom Moss regarding corrections to Figure 5, Land Habitat Sensitivity Map, of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Commissioner Sawyer then provided an oral report. Vice Chair Murphy opened the floor to public comment.

The following individuals provided public comment: Anthony Ciani, Lisa Ciani, Thom Akeman, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Lori McDonnell. Vice Chair Murphy then closed the public comment portion and returned the item to the Commission for further questions and discussion. City Attorney (Greg Rubens) recommended the Commission agendize the item for future consideration and action by the Commission.

E. Receive an Oral Report on Activities of the Planning Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
4 Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on activities of the Planning Subcommittee.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Item continued to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting.

10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Report regarding Proposed Revisions to Committee Policies and Procedures From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Receive a report regarding proposed changes to the City’s Boards, Committees and Commissions Handbook.

Reference: From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Item continued to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting.

B. Discussion regarding hotel Parking requirements
From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Hold a discussion on current ordinance requirements for hotel parking. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of intention for the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to PGMC regarding parking requirements for hotels.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Item continued to the November 10, 2022, regular meeting.

11. PRESENTATIONS - None

12. NEXT MEETING – November 10, 2022

13. ADJOURNMENT - By order of the Vice Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 pm. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, November 10, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:13 pm. Start of meeting delayed due to technical issues.

Commissioners Present: Aeschliman, Beck, Fredrickson, Murphy, Nodzenski, Sawyer, Lilley.

Commissioners Absent: None

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –
Chair Lilley asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.

Commissioner Aeschliman made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, to approve the agenda as proposed. Commissioner Sawyer recommended a friendly amendment to move Item 8B (Historic Determination 22-0255 for 1352 Lighthouse Avenue) to Item 8A and Item 8A (Architectural Permit and Coastal Development Permit 22-0080, 176 Central Avenue) to Item 8B, and this amendment was accepted by both Commissioners Aeschliman and Murphy. The Commission voted unanimously 7-0-0 to approve the agenda as amended. (7-0-0)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Commissioner Aeschliman commented regarding the requirements for new residential construction and the accommodations for electric charging units.

B. Chair Lilley congratulated the elected officials and everyone who ran for office.

C. Commission Liaison Sidor summarized the correspondence received.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti provided election and ballot measure information.

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

Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Tony Ciani

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION – None
2 7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the September 1, 2022, Planning Commission Special Meeting Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes of the September 1, 2022, Planning Commission Special Meeting.

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

On a motion by Commissioner Aeschliman, seconded by Commissioner Murphy, the consent agenda was unanimously approved as presented on a roll call vote. (7-0)

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Historic Determination 22-0255 for 1352 Lighthouse Avenue (APN 007-011- 005)
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: O / Open Space Institutional Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Find the property ineligible for the Historic Resources Inventory.

Reference: Alex Othon, Associate Planner
Chair Lilley introduced the item. Commissioner Murphy and Secretary Sawyer reported ex parte communications with Mimi Sheridan (historic preservation consultant, planner, and former Chair of the City’s Historic Resources Committee).

Commissioner Aeschliman reported an ex parte communication with Charles Green, and Chair Lilley reported ex parte communications with Lisa Ciani (member of COAST). After receiving an oral report by Associate Planner Othon, and testimony from COAST (Darcie Fohrman), the owner’s attorney (Maclean Brady), and Dana Supernowicz (owner’s historian), Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment: Steve Hauk, Angie Barr Cannon, David Laws, Brenna Wheelis, Charles Green, Sue Morley, Justin LeBlanc, Pamela Tannis, Vicki Pearse, Lisa Ciani, Janet Cohen, Lora Lee Martin, Jennifer Carson, Cari Rotoli, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Tony Ciani, Geva Arcanin, and Louise Miranda Ramirez. Chair Lilley closed the public comment portion of the meeting and opened the opportunity for rebuttal from COAST (Charles Green) and the owner’s historian (Dana Supernowicz). Chair Lilley then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

Vice Chair Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, to find the property ineligible for the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). On a roll call vote, the motion failed. (3-4-0; Aeschliman, Beck, Lilley, and Nodzenski opposed)
3 Commissioner Aeschliman then made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to recommend the City Council request a historic resource assessment to determine if the property at 1352 Lighthouse Avenue is eligible to be placed on the HRI, and the Chair represent the Planning Commission at the City Council at some future meeting to recommend the City prepare a Phase I historic report for the property. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved. (4- 3-0; Murphy, Sawyer, and Fredrickson opposed)
On a motion by Commissioner Aeschliman, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, the Commission appointed Chair Lilley as the Planning Commission representative to bring the matter before the City Council. (4-3-0; Murphy, Sawyer, Fredrickson opposed)
At approximately 8:53 pm, the Chair called a brief recess. The Commission reconvened at 9:03 pm.

B. Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0080, 176 Central Avenue (APN 006-234-010)
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: V-C / Visitor-Serving Commercial
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed Architectural Permit and Coastal Development Permit (AP/CDP 22-0080), subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities).

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Secretary Sawyer and Commissioner Beck reported ex parte communications. Both Commissioners visited the site and discussed the project. Chair Lilley recused himself from consideration of this project. Vice Chair Murphy then introduced the item.

After receiving an oral report by Contract Planner Sidor, and testimony from the applicant’s attorney (Cody Phillips) and the owner (Jon Kramer), Vice Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment:

Tony Ciani, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Kim Akeman, Thom Akeman, Janet Cohen, and Lisa Ciani. Vice Chair Murphy closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

After discussion, Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to approve the project as presented with conditions of approval to require a low-cost visitor accommodation, compliance with City accessible parking requirements, and off-site valet parking as needed. Secretary 4 Sawyer recommended a friendly amendment to require a construction management plan, and this amendment was accepted by both Commissioners Fredrickson and Nodzenski. On a roll call vote, the motion failed. (3-3-0-1; Beck, Murphy, and Sawyer opposed; Lilley recused)
Commissioner Fredrickson then made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, to continue this item to the December 8, 2022, regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (6-0-0-1; Lilley recused)

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
Although identified below under each item, the Commission continued Items 9A, 9B, 9C, and 9D as a single motion.

A. Parklets Program
From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Receive an oral and written report on activities of the Parklets Subcommittee; review and consider the Parklets Program, including a draft manual prepared by CDD staff; and consider recommendations to the City Council.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Secretary Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, to continue this item to the December 8, 2022 regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (7-0-0)
B. Receive a Report on Activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee, review the charge of the subcommittee, and direct staff to initiate an amendment to Title 23 per the recommendations of the subcommittee.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Secretary Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, to continue this item to the December 8, 2022 regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the 5 motion was unanimously approved. (7-0-0)
C. Receive a Report on the Housing Element Update
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the Housing Element Update.

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Secretary Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, to continue this item to the December 8, 2022 regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (7-0-0)
D. Discussion regarding Hotel Parking Requirements; continued from the October 13, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Hold a discussion on current ordinance requirements for hotel parking. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of intention for the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to PGMC regarding parking requirements for hotels.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Secretary Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fredrickson, to continue this item to the December 8, 2022 regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (7-0-0)

10. NEW BUSINESS – None

11. PRESENTATIONS - None

12. NEXT MEETING – December 8, 2022

13. ADJOURNMENT - By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 11:08 pm. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION

REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, December 8, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm.

Commissioners Present: Aeschliman, Fredrickson, Nodzenski, Sawyer, Lilley.

Commissioners Absent: Murphy
One Vacancy

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –
Chair Lilley asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.

Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aeschliman, to approve both the regular and special meeting agendas as proposed. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. (5-0-1-1; Murphy absent; one vacancy)

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Chair Lilley commented on the Regular and Special meeting agendas. He also announced that Commissioner Sawyer resigned as Planning Commission Secretary, thanked her for her efforts, and requested volunteers. Commissioners Aeschliman, Sawyer, and Fredrickson commented.

B. Commission Liaison Sidor summarized the correspondence received.

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Coletti announced that the City Council seated two new members – Debby Beck and Lori McDonnell.

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – No verbal comment received from members of the public during the meeting.

A. Public Comments
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Receive public comments, if applicable.

CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
The Planning Commission received multiple written comments regarding Parklets. 2 CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION – None

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION – None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22-0080, 176 Central Avenue (APN 006-234-010); Continued from the November 10, 2022, Planning Commission meeting
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: V-C / Visitor-Serving Commercial
Coastal Zone: Yes
Historic Resources Inventory: No
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities
Recommended Action: Continue the subject project (AP/CDP No. 22-0080) to January 12, 2023.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, to continue this item to the January 12, 2023, regular meeting. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (4-0-1-1-1; Murphy absent; Lilley recused; one vacancy)
B. Parklets Program; Continued from the November 10, 2022, Planning Commission meeting
From: Claudia Sawyer, Secretary
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Receive an oral and written report on activities of the Parklets Subcommittee
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Secretary
Chair Lilley introduced the item and discussed the process for review. The Chief Building Official (John Kuehl) provided brief comments regarding the Draft Parklet Program manual prepared by staff and included in the subcommittee’s report. Chair 3 Lilley and Commissioner Sawyer provided a presentation on the Parklet Subcommittee report, including recommendations to the City Council. Chair Lilley then opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment: Liz Jacobs, Jenny MacMurdo, Jerry Register, Mark Brice Chakwin, Thom Akeman, Michael Scanlon, Nancy (last name not provided), Colleen Ingram, Atticus Rotoli, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Kim (last name not provided), Lisa Ciani, Tony Ciani, and Jordan Champagne. Chair Lilley then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

Chair Lilley recessed the Regular Meeting and convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 pm. See the minutes for the Special Meeting.

The Special Meeting was adjourned and at the Regular Meeting reconvened at 8:17 pm. No further action taken on this item.

C. Receive a Report on Activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Policy and Ordinance Subcommittee, and direct staff to initiate an amendment to Title 23 per the recommendations of the subcommittee.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
After receiving an oral report from Commissioner Sawyer, Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment: Tony Ciani and Lisa Ciani. Chair Lilley closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, to direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for Commission consideration. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (5-0-1-1; Murphy absent; one vacancy)
D. Discussion regarding Hotel Parking Requirements; continued from the October 13 and November 10, 2022, Planning Commission meetings.

From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 Recommended Action: Hold a discussion on current ordinance requirements for hotel parking. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of intention for the Planning 4 Commission to initiate an amendment to the PGMC regarding parking requirements for hotels.

Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Chair Lilley introduced the item, opened the public hearing, and the following individuals provided public comment: Tony Ciani, Lisa Ciani, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer. Chair Lilley closed the public hearing portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.

Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aeschliman, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of intention to initiate an amendment to the PGMC consistent with the Commission’s direction. On a roll call vote, the motion was unanimously approved. (5-0-1-1; Murphy absent; one vacancy)
E. Oral Report regarding Policies and Procedures of Boards, Committees, and Commissions
From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Receive an oral report regarding policies and procedures of Boards, Committees, and Commissions
Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
Chair Lilley introduced the item. No individuals provided public comment. No further action taken.

F. Receive a Report on the Housing Element and General Plan Updates From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive a report on the Housing Element and General Plan updates.

Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director After comments from Contract Planner Sidor and City Attorney Rubens, Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individual provided public comment:

Andrew K. (full last name not provided). Chair Lilley closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion. No further action taken.
5 10. NEW BUSINESS – None

11. PRESENTATIONS – None

12. NEXT MEETING – January 12, 2023

13. ADJOURNMENT - By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 9:17 pm. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, December 8, 2022, 6:00 P.M.

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

1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – See the Regular Meeting minutes for December 8, 2022.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – See the Regular Meeting minutes for December 8, 2022.

3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) – None

4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS – None

5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – None

CONSENT AGENDA

6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION – None

7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION – None

REGULAR AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Parklet Program Recommendation
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378.

Recommended Action: Consider a recommendation to the City Council regarding the Parklet Program.

Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
2 Chair Lilley recessed the Regular Meeting and convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 pm.

Commissioner Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Nodzenski, to accept the Parklet Program subcommittee’s report with its recommendations, and forward that to the City Council. On a roll call vote, the motion was approved. (4- 1-1-1; Fredrickson opposed; Murphy absent; one vacancy) Chair Lilley adjourned the Special Meeting and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 8:17 pm. See the minutes for the Regular Meeting for December 8, 2022.

9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS – None

10. NEW BUSINESS – None

11. PRESENTATIONS – None

12. NEXT MEETING – January 12, 2023

13. ADJOURNMENT - See the Regular Meeting minutes for December 8, 2022.

Agenda No. 11 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2023
SUBJECT: Scope of Public Comments At Meetings of Legislative Bodies CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Request a reading of title of Ordinance;
Motion to waive further reading and introduce for a first reading of Ordinance Amending Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 Regarding Public Comment; and

2. Motion to adopt proposed amendment to Council Policy 000-017 Order of Agenda for Council Meetings

3. DISCUSSION
A. Summary
The general rule regarding the scope of public comment is that members of the public must be afforded the opportunity to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body during a regular meeting.

So long as public comment regards the subject matter jurisdiction of the agency – meaning anything that is before, or could properly be before, the Council – and does not create an actual disturbance that impedes the meeting from continuing, the public comment must be allowed. However, the public comment may be excluded if it causes actual disturbances or impedes a public meeting and the presiding member of the legislative body first warns the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal.

B. Government Code Sections
Government Code Section 54954.3 (a) provides, in part, that every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action has been lawfully added after the posting of the agenda.

Government Code Section 54954.3 (b)(1) provides, in part, that the legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.

Government Code Section 54954.3 (c) provides, in part, that the legislative body of a local agency shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.

On January 1, 2023, Government Code Section §54957.95 became effective provides that the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting or their designee may remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting. Prior to removing an individual, the presiding member or their designee must first warn the individual (unless the behavior constitutes a use of force or a true threat of force) that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The presiding member or their designee may then cause the removal of the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior. “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting. .

C. Proposed Ordinance To Amend Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 Subsection (d) Attachment 1 is Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 as it currently exists. Attachment 2 shows the proposed track changes to Section 2.04.050. Attachment 3 is the proposed Ordinance to amend Section 2.04.050 (d).

1. Pacific Grove Municipal Code Section 2.04.050 subsection (d) currently reads:
(d) Comments from the Audience. The purpose of the city council agenda item allowing comments from the audience is to provide the public an opportunity to address the council on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. Comments will be received on items either on or not on the agenda. (Comments on nonconsent agenda items will be heard when the matter is addressed by council.) Whenever possible, letters should be submitted to the council in advance of the meeting. The following rules and regulations govern the comments from the audience item on the agenda:
(1) The subject matter must be a matter of concern or interest to the city and/or within the purview of the council’s authority to determine policy. It shall be the responsibility of the chair to stop the speaker if there is a deviation from such subject matter.
(2) Persons wishing to address the council must come to the podium and will be asked to state their name, address and subject matter of their communication. (Refusal to provide any or all of this information is not grounds to deny speakers’ privileges.) (3) Comments to the council under this section shall be limited to three minutes. (4) Council or staff may briefly respond (but shall not engage in discussion or dialogue) to statements or questions, may ask questions for clarification, and may refer matters raised by statements for further consideration at a later date.
(5) These rules regarding comments from the audience may be suspended at any time by an affirmative vote of no fewer than four councilmembers.

2. Recommendation: It is recommended that Section 2.04.050 subsection (d) be revised to replace the current language in subsection (d) with the following:
(d) Public Comment
(1) The City Council may adopt a policy or policies to ensure that the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council on matters on the Agenda and on matters not on the Agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. (2) The City Council shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the City Council.

This change to the Municipal Code will allow the City Council with the flexibility to make changes as may be necessary by revising existing policies and/or adopting a new policy including the amendment discussed below.

D. Proposed Amendment to Council Policy 000-17
Attachment 4 to this Agenda Report is a copy of the current Council Policy 000-17. Attachment 5 to this Agenda Report contains track changes which are proposed to Council Policy 000-17. Attachment 6 to this Agenda Report is Council Policy 000-17 which includes the proposed changes.

The proposed changes to Council Policy 000-17 are consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections mentioned above in this Agenda Report including Sections 54954.3; 54957.9 and 54957.95.

Here are the proposed amendments to Section 4 of Council Policy 000-17:

4. Public Comment
These are comments from the public on matters that are on the agenda (including the Consent Agenda) as well as for matters not on the agenda during Oral Communications which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City.

Persons who wish to address the Council shall use the microphone and are asked to state their name. It is helpful if speakers also indicate the subject matter of their comments. (Note: Even if a speaker refuses to state his or her name or the subject matter of the comment, the speaker shall not be denied the right to speak.) Accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities.

Public comment shall be limited to three minutes per speaker for each item on the Agenda. For Oral Communications, each speaker shall be limited to three minutes.

In the discretion of the Mayor, the length of the public comment on an item on the Agenda may be reduced to lower than three minutes when appropriate based on the number of speakers for an item and/or the Mayor may limit the total time for public comment on an item on the Agenda.

Communication to the Council under Oral Communications will be received without comment while the public comment period is open. When public comment during Oral Communications is closed, questions from the public may be referred to staff for a brief response.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3 (c), the City Council shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.9, in the event that any meeting is willfully interrupted by a group or groups of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are willfully interrupting the meeting, the Mayor may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session. Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session. Representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section.

After the meeting room has been cleared, the Mayor may readmit an individual or individuals not responsible for willfully disturbing the orderly conduct of the meeting.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.95, the Mayor may cause the removal of any individual for disrupting the meeting subject to the following rules:
(1) Prior to removing an individual, the Mayor shall warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. (2) The Mayor may then cause the removal of the individual if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior.
(3) “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, one of the following: (A) A failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Section 54954.3 or any other law. (B) Engaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force. (4) “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.
(5) If there has been a use of force or a true threat of force, there is no obligation for the Mayor to provide a warning to the individual before causing the individual to be removed from the meeting.

OPTIONS

1. Do not adopt Proposed Ordinance

2. Do not approve the proposed revisions to Council Policy 000-017 FINANCIAL IMPACT:

None.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

Attachments
Public Comment
1 - PGMC Section 2.04.050 Current Version
2 - PGMC Section 2.04.050 Proposed revisions in track changes 3 - Proposed Ordinance No ___ amending PGMC Section 2.04.050 4 - Council Policy 000-17 Current Version
5 - Council Policy 000-017 Proposed revision in track changes 6 - Council Policy 000-017 Proposed Amended version
PPT

1/31/23, 8:16 AM Mail - Kerry Lindstrom - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADYyMjk4YWQ5LTllNGQtNDUyYS04YjIwLTlmMjJjOWFiNGVmZQBGAAAAAABe%2FOZZGRnqSoa… 1/1 Agenda item 11-A. THE SCOPE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Mon 1/30/2023 6:23 PM
To: City Council Members <[email protected]>;Pierik, Brian A. <[email protected]>;Rubens, Gregory J. <[email protected]> [NOTICE: This message originated outside of the City of Pacific Grove email system -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Dear Mayor, and City Council Members:

As I remember it, there was a certain amount of disruption by the public at the last city Council meeting on January 18. I believe that I saw subject matter for item 9E changed right in the middle of a council meeting which was not the usual expected decorum? Please, re-visit item 9E, from the January 18 meeting, as it was written, and take appropriate action, while you disregard the action that you took on the impromptu change to the subject matter of item 9E.

Thank you so much for addressing the rules for audience participation in city council meetings in a written format. I hope you ratify these rules and have them on hand for future City Council meetings, as well as printing up enough, paper copies of the Agenda for the people who come to each meeting.

I hope this email will find its way into your packet for the Wednesday meeting of February 1, 2023? Sincerely, Vincent Tuminello Pacific Grove resident
ATTACHMENT 1

2.04.050 Agenda and consideration of unlisted matters.
(a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular and special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.
(b) Emergency Meetings. Agendas for emergency situations as defined by Section 54956.5 of the California Government Code shall comply with noticing prescribed in Section 54956.5. (c) Request. Any councilmember may place items on the agenda by requesting the city manager to do so by 12:00 noon on Wednesday of the week preceding a regular council meeting, and three days in advance of any special meeting, except that special meetings called during any meeting of the council shall have those items on the agenda for which request has been made in open council meeting without further request. The city manager may also place items on the agenda which he or she deems of interest to the council.
(d) Comments from the Audience. The purpose of the city council agenda item allowing comments from the audience is to provide the public an opportunity to address the council on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. Comments will be received on items either on or not on the agenda. (Comments on nonconsent agenda items will be heard when the matter is addressed by council.) Whenever possible, letters should be submitted to the council in advance of the meeting.

The following rules and regulations govern the comments from the audience item on the agenda:
(1) The subject matter must be a matter of concern or interest to the city and/or within the purview of the council’s authority to determine policy. It shall be the responsibility of the chair to stop the speaker if there is a deviation from such subject matter. (2) Persons wishing to address the council must come to the podium and will be asked to state their name, address and subject matter of their communication. (Refusal to provide any or all of this information is not grounds to deny speakers’ privileges.) (3) Comments to the council under this section shall be limited to three minutes. (4) Council or staff may briefly respond (but shall not engage in discussion or dialogue) to statements or questions, may ask questions for clarification, and may refer matters raised by statements for further consideration at a later date.
(5) These rules regarding comments from the audience may be suspended at any time by an affirmative vote of no fewer than four councilmembers.
(e) Minutes shall be prepared following all council meetings and shall provide a record of when and where a meeting took place, who was present, type of meeting, what was considered, and any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(c)(2). (f) Reportable actions taken by council in closed session shall be reported when council next convenes in open session in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. [Ord. 21-025 § 2, 2021; Ord. 01-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1953 N.S. § 2, 1994; Ord. 1832 N.S. § 2, 1992; Ord. 1812 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1806 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1774 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1556 N.S. § 1, 1986; Ord. 1493 N.S., 1985; Ord. 1338 N.S. § 1, 1983; Ord. 1101 N.S. § 1, 1979; Ord. 1047 N.S. § 1, 1978; Ord. 920 N.S. § 1, 1977; Ord. 847 N.S. § 1, 1975; Ord. 541 N.S., 1966].

ATTACHMENT 2

2.04.050 Agenda and consideration of unlisted matters.
(a) Order of Agenda. The city manager shall prepare, circulate and post in conformity with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act and council policy, not less than 72 hours before any regular and special council meetings, an agenda, which shall list and describe the items to be considered at the meeting.
(b) Emergency Meetings. Agendas for emergency situations as defined by Section 54956.5 of the California Government Code shall comply with noticing prescribed in Section 54956.5. (c) Request. Any councilmember may place items on the agenda by requesting the city manager to do so by 12:00 noon on Wednesday of the week preceding a regular council meeting, and three days in advance of any special meeting, except that special meetings called during any meeting of the council shall have those items on the agenda for which request has been made in open council meeting without further request. The city manager may also place items on the agenda which he or she deems of interest to the council.
(d) Public Comment
(1) The City Council may adopt a policy or policies to ensure that the public will be provided an opportunity to address the City Council, and other legislative bodies of the City, on matters on the Agenda and on matters not on the Agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
(2)` The City Council, and other legislative bodies of the City, shall not prohibit public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the City Council and other legislative bodies of the City.
(d) Comments from the Audience. The purpose of the city council agenda item allowing comments from the audience is to provide the public an opportunity to address the council on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. Comments will be received on items either on or not on the agenda. (Comments on nonconsent agenda items will be heard when the matter is addressed by council.) Whenever possible, letters should be submitted to the council in advance of the meeting.

The following rules and regulations govern the comments from the audience item on the agenda:
(1) The subject matter must be a matter of concern or interest to the city and/or within the purview of the council’s authority to determine policy. It shall be the responsibility of the chair to stop the speaker if there is a deviation from such subject matter. (2) Persons wishing to address the council must come to the podium and will be asked to state their name, address and subject matter of their communication. (Refusal to provide any or all of this information is not grounds to deny speakers’ privileges.) (3) Comments to the council under this section shall be limited to three minutes.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
(4) Council or staff may briefly respond (but shall not engage in discussion or dialogue) to statements or questions, may ask questions for clarification, and may refer matters raised by statements for further consideration at a later date.
(5) These rules regarding comments from the audience may be suspended at any time by an affirmative vote of no fewer than four councilmembers.
(d) Comments from the Audience. The purpose of the city council agenda item allowing comments from the audience is to provide the public an opportunity to address the council on matters within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city. Comments will be received on items either on or not on the agenda. (Comments on nonconsent agenda items will be heard when the matter is addressed by council.) Whenever possible, letters should be submitted to the council in advance of the meeting.

The following rules and regulations govern the comments from the audience item on the agenda:
(f) Reportable actions taken by council in closed session shall be reported when council next convenes in open session in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act. [Ord. 21-025 § 2, 2021; Ord. 01-08 § 1, 2001; Ord. 1953 N.S. § 2, 1994; Ord. 1832 N.S. § 2, 1992; Ord. 1812 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1806 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1774 N.S. § 2, 1991; Ord. 1556 N.S. § 1, 1986; Ord. 1493 N.S., 1985; Ord. 1338 N.S. § 1, 1983; Ord. 1101 N.S. § 1, 1979; Ord. 1047 N.S. § 1, 1978; Ord. 920 N.S. § 1, 1977; Ord. 847 N.S. § 1, 1975; Ord. 541 N.S., 1966].