Pacific Grove City Council
June 21, 2023

REVISED DEPARTMENTS, GENERAL FUND: SERVICES AND SUPPLIES

CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, ECON DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, POLICE, LIBRARY, PUBLIC WORKS, RECREATION

DEPARTMENT ACCT TITLE
FY 23/24

RECOMMENDED NOTE DESCRIPTION
NOTE
AMOUNT
30 - POLICE 5301 POLICE OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES - PRINTING CITE BOOKS 2,000 30 - POLICE 5301 POLICE OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES - MISC. 4,000 30 - POLICE 5306 POLICE OPERATIONS OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10,000 - 30 - POLICE 5306 POLICE OPERATIONS OFFICE EQUIPMENT - CHAIRS, FURNITURE 10,000 30 - POLICE 5311 POLICE OPERATIONS VEHICLE FUEL 35,000 - 30 - POLICE 5316 POLICE OPERATIONS AMMUNITION 12,000 -
30 - POLICE 5316 POLICE OPERATIONS AMMUNITION - RIFLE AMMUNITION 5,000 30 - POLICE 5316 POLICE OPERATIONS AMMUNITION - HANDGUN AMMUNITION 5,000 30 - POLICE 5316 POLICE OPERATIONS AMMUNITION - POLICE ACADEMY RECRUIT TRAINING 2,000 TOTAL POLICE 1,016,600

LIBRARY
40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES 40,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - PACIFIC LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP 8,641 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - SENTRY ALARM 2,500 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - CITY OF MONTEREY 3,671 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - BYWATER SOLUTIONS 8,166 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - LIBRARICA LLC 300 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - BAKER & TAYLOR 3,100 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - CALIFA GROUP 6,411 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - CROZIER STUDIOS 1,300 40 - LIBRARY 5201 LIBRARY OPERATION CONTRACT SERVICES - MITEL SVGS 5,911 40 - LIBRARY 5211 LIBRARY OPERATION POSTAGE 300 -
40 - LIBRARY 5212 LIBRARY OPERATION TELEPHONE 1,000 -
40 - LIBRARY 5215 LIBRARY OPERATION MEETING/TRAINING/ 1,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5222 LIBRARY OPERATION UTILITIES 21,000 -
40 - LIBRARY 5223 LIBRARY OPERATION BLDG REPAIR, MAIN 5,400 - 40 - LIBRARY 5225 LIBRARY OPERATION OPERATING LEASES/ 7,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5230 LIBRARY OPERATION INTERNAL SERVICE 35,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5291 LIBRARY OPERATION MISC. DEPT EXPENS 11,500 - 40 - LIBRARY 5301 LIBRARY OPERATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 12,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5303 LIBRARY OPERATION BOOKS, PRINTED MA 40,000 - 40 - LIBRARY 5306 LIBRARY OPERATION OFFICE EQUIPMENT 8,000 - TOTAL LIBRARY 182,200
PGCC 6-21-23

REVISED DEPARTMENTS, GENERAL FUND: SERVICES AND SUPPLIES

CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, ECON DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, POLICE, LIBRARY, PUBLIC WORKS, RECREATION

DEPARTMENT ACCT TITLE
FY 23/24

RECOMMENDED NOTE DESCRIPTION
NOTE
AMOUNT

RECREATION
42 - RECREATION 5201 RECREATION OPERAT CONTRACT SERVICES 10,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5201 RECREATION OPERAT CONTRACT SERVICES - ISC CONTRACT AND PROGRAM RELATED CONTRACT - 42 - RECREATION 5208 RECREATION OPERAT CONTRACT PERSONNE 35,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5211 RECREATION OPERAT POSTAGE 1,000 -
42 - RECREATION 5212 RECREATION OPERAT TELEPHONE 4,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5213 RECREATION OPERAT BANK FEES 25,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5213 RECREATION OPERAT BANK FEES - BANK FEES FOR ONLINE REG - USER PAYS 5,000 42 - RECREATION 5213 RECREATION OPERAT BANK FEES - BASED ON YTD EXPENSES & INCR. PROGRAMS 20,000 42 - RECREATION 5215 RECREATION OPERAT MEETING/TRAINING/ 3,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5215 RECREATION OPERAT MEETING/TRAINING/ - LIFE GUARD CLASSES; REC TRAININGS - 42 - RECREATION 5217 RECREATION OPERAT TRAVEL, MEAL COST 2,500 - 42 - RECREATION 5217 RECREATION OPERAT TRAVEL, MEAL COST - ANTICIPATED INCREASED TRAINING - 42 - RECREATION 5221 RECREATION OPERAT ADVERTISING 16,500 - 42 - RECREATION 5221 RECREATION OPERAT ADVERTISING - ACTIVITY GUIDE PROD/MAILING & SUMMER/HIRING - 42 - RECREATION 5222 RECREATION OPERAT UTILITIES 175,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5222 RECREATION OPERAT UTILITIES - INCLUDES INCREASE FOR CAL AM - 42 - RECREATION 5223 RECREATION OPERAT BLDG REPAIR, MAIN 10,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5223 RECREATION OPERAT BLDG REPAIR, MAIN - AGING FACILITIES - 42 - RECREATION 5225 RECREATION OPERAT OPERATING LEASES/ 75 - 42 - RECREATION 5226 RECREATION OPERAT EQUIPMENT REPAIR 5,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5227 RECREATION OPERAT VEHICLE REPAIR 1,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5230 RECREATION OPERAT INTERNAL SERVICE 28,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5261 RECREATION OPERAT SUBSCRIPTIONS, ME 2,500 - 42 - RECREATION 5301 RECREATION OPERAT OFFICE SUPPLIES 6,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5301 RECREATION OPERAT OFFICE SUPPLIES - NEW OFFICE SUPPLES, SUPPLIES NEW EMPLOYEE - 42 - RECREATION 5305 RECREATION OPERAT JANITORIAL SUPPLI 4,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5305 RECREATION OPERAT JANITORIAL SUPPLI - INCREASED DUE TO MORE PROGRAMS - 42 - RECREATION 5309 RECREATION OPERAT OTHER SUPPLIES 5,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5309 RECREATION OPERAT OTHER SUPPLIES - INCREASED DUE TO MORE PROGRAMS - 42 - RECREATION 5311 RECREATION OPERAT VEHICLE FUEL 1,100 - 42 - RECREATION 5361 RECREATION OPERAT RECREATION SUPPLI 20,000 - 42 - RECREATION 5361 RECREATION OPERAT RECREATION SUPPLI - NEEDS FOR INCREASED PRGMS - PRESCHOOL, YOUTH - 42 - RECREATION 5504 RECREATION OPERAT REC PRO SHOP INVE 1,000 - TOTAL RECREATION 355,675
PGCC 6-21-23

REVISED DEPARTMENTS, GENERAL FUND: SERVICES AND SUPPLIES

CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, ECON DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, POLICE, LIBRARY, PUBLIC WORKS, RECREATION

DEPARTMENT ACCT TITLE
FY 23/24

RECOMMENDED NOTE DESCRIPTION
NOTE
AMOUNT

PUBLIC WORKS
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI CONTRACT SERVICES 255,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI CONTRACT SERVICES - CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN 100,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI CONTRACT SERVICES - COMPLETE STREETS POLICY 125,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI CONTRACT SERVICES - GULL ABATMENT 25,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI CONTRACT SERVICES - MISC CONTRACT SERVICES 5,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES 130,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - PARK MOWING 20,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - MISC BUILDING & FACILITIES CONTRACT 21,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - CITY HALL SUPPLEMENTAL JANITORIAL 10,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - PG MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY JANITORIAL 29,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - SENTRY ALARM 15,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - LANDSCAPE SERVICES 15,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 BUILDINGS & GROUN CONTRACT SERVICES - ON-CALL ELECTRICAL SERVICES 20,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET CLEANING CONTRACT SERVICES 225,720 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET CLEANING CONTRACT SERVICES - STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT 225,720 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES 146,500 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - MISC. CONTRACT 5,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT & REPAIRS 20,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - IWORQ SOFTWARE 1,500 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - GIS MAPPING SERVICES 5,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - STORMWATER MONITORING 40,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 STREET MAINTENANC CONTRACT SERVICES - ON CALL CONCRETE CONTRACTOR 75,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES 445,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES - 20K MISC. ANTICIPATED INC IN ANNUAL CONTRACT 20,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES - BUTTERFLY SANCTUARY GRANT MATCH FUNDING 25,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES - STU WEISS SERVICES - MONARCH SANCT. MGMT PLAN 10,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES - TREE SERVICES (TOPES) 270,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5201 FORESTRY CONTRACT SERVICES - ARBORIST SERVICES 115,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5202 PROFESSIONAL/CONSULTANT SERVICES 28,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5202 PROFESSIONAL/CONSULTANT SERVICES 1999 GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE 28,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5211 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI POSTAGE 4,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5211 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI POSTAGE - INCLUDES OUTREACH MAILERS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5212 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI TELEPHONE 10,667 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5212 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI TELEPHONE - BASED ON YTD EXPENSES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5213 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI BANK FEES 2,266 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5213 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI BANK FEES - BASED ON YTD EXPENSES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5215 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI MEETING/TRAINING/ 8,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5215 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI MEETING/TRAINING/ - VARIOUS TRAVEL/TRAINING FOR STAFF - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5221 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI ADVERTISING 4,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5221 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI ADVERTISING - INCREASED ADVERTISING FOR CIP - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5222 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI UTILITIES 25,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5222 BUILDINGS & GROUN UTILITIES 190,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5222 STREET MAINTENANC UTILITIES 38,380 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI BLDG REPAIR, MAIN 5,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI BLDG REPAIR, MAIN - INCREASED NEEDS FOR NEW OFFICE SPACE - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 MECHANICAL BLDG REPAIR, MAIN 2,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 MECHANICAL BLDG REPAIR, MAIN - INCREASED BLDG MAINT NEEDS DUE TO AGING FACILITY - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 BUILDINGS & GROUN BLDG REPAIR, MAIN 200,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5223 BUILDINGS & GROUN BLDG REPAIR, MAIN - AGING FACILITIES YIELDS INCREASED NEEDS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5224 BUILDINGS & GROUN EQUIP REPAIR, MAI 20,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5224 BUILDINGS & GROUN EQUIP REPAIR, MAI - AGING FACILITIES INC. EQUIP REPAIR - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5225 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OPERATING LEASES/ 10,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5225 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OPERATING LEASES/ - BASED ON YTD EXPENSES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT REPAIR 3,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT REPAIR - AGING EQUIPMENT - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 BUILDINGS & GROUN EQUIPMENT REPAIR 5,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 BUILDINGS & GROUN EQUIPMENT REPAIR - EQUIPMENT REPAIR - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 STREET MAINTENANC EQUIPMENT REPAIR 25,000 - PGCC 6-21-23

REVISED DEPARTMENTS, GENERAL FUND: SERVICES AND SUPPLIES

CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, ECON DEVELOPMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, POLICE, LIBRARY, PUBLIC WORKS, RECREATION

DEPARTMENT ACCT TITLE
FY 23/24

RECOMMENDED NOTE DESCRIPTION
NOTE
AMOUNT
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5226 STREET MAINTENANC EQUIPMENT REPAIR - AGING EQUPMENT RESULTS IN INCREASED REPAIR NEEDS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI VEHICLE REPAIR 2,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 MECHANICAL VEHICLE REPAIR 2,500 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 MECHANICAL VEHICLE REPAIR - AGING VEHICLES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 BUILDINGS & GROUN VEHICLE REPAIR 39,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 BUILDINGS & GROUN VEHICLE REPAIR - INCREASED NEEDS DUE TO AGING VEHICLES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5227 STREET MAINTENANC VEHICLE REPAIR 8,500 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5230 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI INTERNAL SERVICE 234,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5261 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI SUBSCRIPTIONS, ME 3,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5261 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI SUBSCRIPTIONS, ME - INCREASED TO REFLECT INCREASED MEMB & SUBSCRIPTIONS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI SAFETY EQUIP 3,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 MECHANICAL SAFETY EQUIP 500 -
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 MECHANICAL SAFETY EQUIP - SAFETYBOOT PURCHSES PER MOU - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 BUILDINGS & GROUN SAFETY EQUIP 3,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 BUILDINGS & GROUN SAFETY EQUIP - SAFETY BOOTS PER MOU - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 STREET MAINTENANC SAFETY EQUIP 1,250 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5275 STREET MAINTENANC SAFETY EQUIP - SAFETY BOOTS PER MOU - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5291 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI MISC. DEPT EXPENSE 6,500 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5291 MECHANICAL MISC. DEPT EXPENS 2,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5291 MECHANICAL MISC. DEPT EXPENS - MISC. MECH DIVISION EXPENSES - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5291 STREET MAINTENANC MISC. DEPT EXPENSE 10,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5301 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OFFICE SUPPLIES 16,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5301 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OFFICE SUPPLIES - INCREASE DUE TO MOVING BACK TO MAIN OFFICE - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5305 BUILDINGS & GROUN JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 47,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5305 BUILDINGS & GROUN JANITORIAL SUPPLIES - INC DUE TO TAKING OVER LP BATHROOMS AND COVID - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OTHER SUPPLIES 14,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OTHER SUPPLIES - MISC. DEPT SUPPLIES 8,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI OTHER SUPPLIES - VOLUNTEER PROGRAM EXPENSES 6,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 MECHANICAL OTHER SUPPLIES 16,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 MECHANICAL OTHER SUPPLIES - BASED ON PREV. YTD EXPENSES - RAGS, UNIFORMS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 BUILDINGS & GROUN OTHER SUPPLIES 35,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 BUILDINGS & GROUN OTHER SUPPLIES - LINEN SERVICES UNIFORM, SHOP RAG, AND MAT CLEANING. - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 STREET MAINTENANC OTHER SUPPLIES 73,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 STREET MAINTENANC OTHER SUPPLIES - INCREASED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVMENTS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 STREET MAINTENANC OTHER SUPPLIES - LINEN SERVICES UNIFORM, SHOP RAG, AND MAT CLEANING. - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 FORESTRY OTHER SUPPLIES 70,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 FORESTRY OTHER SUPPLIES - MEMORIAL TREE PROGRAM 5,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 FORESTRY OTHER SUPPLIES - PURCHASE TREES FOR CITY PROPERTIES 35,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 FORESTRY OTHER SUPPLIES PURCHASE TREES SPECIFICALLY FOR GEORGE WASHINGTON PARK 20,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5309 FORESTRY OTHER SUPPLIES - MISC SOIL SUPPLEMENTS & FORESTRY SUPPLIES 10,000 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5311 PUBLIC WORKS ADMI VEHICLE FUEL 1,500 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5311 MECHANICAL VEHICLE FUEL 1,000 -
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5311 BUILDINGS & GROUN VEHICLE FUEL 13,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5311 STREET MAINTENANC VEHICLE FUEL 7,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 MECHANICAL SMALL TOOLS 3,500 -
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 BUILDINGS & GROUN SMALL TOOLS 5,000 - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 BUILDINGS & GROUN SMALL TOOLS - REPLACE CORDED TOOLS WITH BATTERY POWERED - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 BUILDINGS & GROUN SMALL TOOLS - REPLACEMENT TRIMMERS, SAWS, AND BLOWERS - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 FORESTRY SMALL TOOLS 20,000 -
50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5322 FORESTRY SMALL TOOLS - RESISTOGRAPH PURCHASE FOR CITY TREE ASSESSMENT - 50 - PUBLIC WORKS 5331 STREET MAINTENANC STREET SUPPLIES 40,000 - TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 2,459,783
PGCC 6-21-23

Baseline Scenario FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY 26/27 FY 27/28 Beginning Fund Balance $9,441,669 $12,010,279 $12,174,972 $11,333,886 $11,626,886 $11,897,886 $12,091,886 Revenues 27,686,236 30,852,813 30,638,000 31,671,000 32,426,000 33,150,000 33,945,000 Promissory Note Proceeds - 625,187 - - - -
ARPA Funds 1,554,038 800,000 - - - - -
Transfers - In 181,000 - - - - - -
Total Estimated Revenues 29,421,274 31,652,813 31,263,187 31,671,000 32,426,000 33,150,000 33,945,000 Operating Expenditures 25,376,390 29,331,899 30,100,086 30,483,000 31,254,000 32,048,000 32,446,000 Capital Outlay - 1,244,221 215,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Operating Transfers 938,515 324,000 939,187 320,000 326,000 333,000 340,000 Capital Transfers 537,759 588,000 850,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - - - - -
Total Estimated Expenditures 26,852,664 31,488,120 32,104,273 31,378,000 32,155,000 32,956,000 33,361,000 Net Results (1)
2,568,610 164,693 (841,086) 293,000 271,000 194,000 584,000 Estimated Ending Fund Balance $12,010,279 $12,174,972 $11,333,886 $11,626,886 $11,897,886 $12,091,886 $12,675,886 Reserve levels at 35% of operating expenses $ 8,881,737 $ 10,266,165 $ 10,535,030 $ 10,669,050 $ 10,938,900 $ 11,216,800 $ 11,356,100 (1) The net results are provided to illustrate the amount of unprogrammed funds that could be made available for appropriation in Fiscal Years 23/24 and the remaining forecasted years. It should be noted that some of these funds may be needed to support reserve levels in relation to any increases in operating costs.

Draft General Fund Five-Year Forecast: June 21, 2023
PGCC 6-21-23

Supplementary Project Information
At the June 7, 2023, the City Council proposed funding 4 additional projects from the unprogrammed general fund balance, from the Capital Improvement Unfunded Project List, including:

Project Name Proposed Budget Allocation
Unfunded
Project List
Reference #
George Washington Park (“GWP”)
Enhancement Project $50,000 #6
Urban Canopy Improvement Project $80,000 #34
George Washington Park Master Plan
Review and Design $28,000 #27
Design of Sidewalk Extensions for Outside
Dining Uses $50,000
New Project /
Not on unfunded
Project List
Staff is looking to provide clarification on the following two projects:
• George Washington Park Master Plan Review and Design, and • Urban Canopy Improvement Project
George Washington Park Master Plan Review & Design
At the meeting, council discussed and ultimately approved the “George Washington Park Master Plan Review and Design” (project #27 on the unfunded list). During the council discussion, council members also indicated the project would allow for an update the 1999 George Washington Park Master Plan.

Ultimately, the approved project (Project #27 on the Unfunded List) was a CIP project submitted by the Recreation Board, that aims to develop a plan for the Recreation Zone (Zone 1) of the Park.

Based on the discussion at the meeting, staff believes Council’s intention was to fund a new project, which would allow for an update the 1999 George Washington Park Master Plan; this was not a project on the unfunded list but in alignment with Council’s strategic objective/goals.

Staff is looking for clarification that funding an update to the 1999 GWP Master Plan was Council’s intent. If this is the direction, the $28,000 allocation will be placed in the Public Works operating budget as updating a master plan is not a CIP project.

Urban Canopy Improvement Project
Council approved the Urban Canopy Improvement Project (Project #34 on the unfunded project list) with an $80,000 budget. The project aims to help address the growing tree deficit by PGCC 6-21-23

strategically planting and caring for at least 40 new trees at various locations on City property (street trees, park, etc.). The project, submitted by a Councilmember, proposed two distinct elements:

1. Planting of at least 40 new trees, and

2. Funding a part time Public Works Maintenance worker dedicated to planting and watering trees
The total $80,000 budget was proposed to be divided amongst the two elements, with the majority, $60,000, going toward funding the maintenance worker and $20,000 being dedicated to tree planting.

A part time maintenance worker, dedicated to caring and water for trees, was already included in the position allocation and the PW operating budget which was approved during the budget ordinance first read. Therefore, the original budgeted amount will be reduced to $20,000. Due to the nature of the planting activities, the funding allocation will be placed in the Public Work operating budget as it qualifies as a maintenance activity and not a CIP project.

Project Name Proposed Budget
Allocation
Unfunded Project
List Reference #
George Washington Park (“GWP”) Enhancement
Project $50,000 #6
Urban Canopy Improvement Project $80,000
$20,000 #34
George Washington Park Master Plan Review
and Design $28,000 #27
Design of Sidewalk Extensions for Outside Dining
Uses $50,000
New Project / Not
on unfunded Project
List
1999 George Washington Park Master Plan
Update $28,000
New Project/Not on
unfunded Project
List
Allocations for the 1999 George Washington Park Master Plan Update, and the tree purchases that were included in the Urban Canopy Improvement Project, have been incorporated into the Public Works Department budget. This updated information can be found in the Detailed Services, Supplies, and Other Listing in Attachment 3.

PGCC 6-21-23

ORDINANCE NO. xx-xxx

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

ADOPTING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2023-24; AND AMENDING THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
FACTS

1. The City Council held a public hearing and first reading of an ordinance to adopt the FY 2023-24 Operating and Capital Projects Budget; and amend the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Projects Budget.

2. The City Manager is recommending adoption of the FY 2023-24 Budget to reflect the City Council’s expressed goals for the fiscal year budget; and approve changes for the FY 2022-23 Operating and Capital Budget.

3. Pursuant to Charter Article 15, adoption of the annual budget and or amendment of the budget must be approved by ordinance.

4. A summary of the Ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, was published on June 15, 2023.

5. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.

6. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

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

SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are adopted as findings of the City Council as set forth fully within the body of this ordinance.

PGCC 6-21-23

SECTION 2. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budgets for the General Fund are adopted as follows:

SECTION 3. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budget for the Enterprise Funds are adopted as follows:

SECTION 4. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budget for the Internal Service Funds are adopted as follows:

SECTION 5. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budget for the Permanent Funds are adopted as follows.

General Fund Revenues Expenditures
Revenues $ 31,263,187
Expenditures
City Council $ 310,998
City Manager 1,225,545
Economic Development 369,025
City Attorney 996,100
Finance 1,374,546
Information Services 935,429
Community Development 3,022,491
Police 8,336,438
Fire 4,403,000
Public Works 5,011,544
Library 1,159,335
Museum 337,400
Recreation 1,189,769
Debt Service 1,428,466
Capital Outlay 215,000
Capital Project Transfers 850,000
Other Transfers 939,187
Total General Fund $ 31,263,187 $ 32,104,273
Enterprise Funds Revenues Expenditures
Cemetery $ 656,500 $ 681,989
Golf 731,500 670,598
Local Water Project 1,576,187 1,636,449
Sewer 4,436,000 4,502,614
Total Enterprise Funds $ 7,400,187 $ 7,491,650
Internal Service Funds Revenues Expenditures
Employee Benefits $ 359,950 $ 359,600
Liability Insurance 722,500 689,945
Workers Compensation 730,000 730,522
Total Internal Service Funds $ 1,812,450 $ 1,780,067
Permanent Funds Revenues Expenditures
Cemetery Endowment $ 110,000 $ -
Library Endowment 10,000 -
Yount Trust 15,000 15,000
Total Permanent Funds $ 135,000 $ 15,000
PGCC 6-21-23

SECTION 6. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budget for the Capital Improvement Funds are adopted as follows.

SECTION 7. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budgets for the Special Revenue Funds and are adopted as follows.

Capital Improvement Fund Revenues Expenditures
General Fund CIP $ 850,000 $ 850,000
Total Capital Improvement Funds $ 850,000 $ 850,000
Special Revenue Funds Revenues Expenditures
American Rescue Plan Funds $ 3,000 $ 81,325
ASBS Grant - -
Cal Home Reuse 2,000 24,000
Carillon 100 -
CDBG Grant 7,500 520,000
Chautaqua Hall 150 -
Coastal Conservancy Grant 1,200 -
Coronavirus Relief Fund - -
Downtown Business District 33,350 33,000
Environmental Enhancement 800 -
Fire Emergency Equipment 21,900 22,000
Gas Tax Fund 416,317 438,393
General Plan Maintenance Fee Fund 10,000 -
Hospitality Improvement District 489,400 488,000
Housing Fund 5,000 203,666
Library Building and Equipment 1,000 18,000
Lighthouse Fund 97,000 128,464
Library Book Donations 40,500 40,000
Local Streets and Roads 760,678 786,088
McIndoo Donation 500 -
Museum Improvement 3,000 -
Operating Grants 591,906 591,896
Poetry Promotion 35,620 14,700
Public Safety Augmentation 466,000 463,860
Regional Safety Trans. (RSTP) 750,000 750,000
RMRA 372,339 505,049
Senior Housing 100 -
Sewer Lateral Loans 10,000 -
Small Business Grant Fund - -
State Franchise PEG 52,500 81,000
Strong Fund Disbursements 41,000 -
Supplemental Law Enforcement 247,750 277,470
Vehicle Abandonment 13,200 -
Yount Income 16,000 -
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 4,489,810 $ 5,466,911
PGCC 6-21-23

SECTION 8. The FY 2023-24 appropriated budgets for the General Fund Sub-Funds are adopted as follows.

SECTION 9. The FY 2022-23 appropriated Budget is amended to reduce or increase the budgets in the funds listed below, as follows.

SECTION 10. The Fiscal Year 2023-24 estimated revenues, expenditures, and ending fund balances are referenced herein:

General Fund Sub-Funds Revenues Expenditures
Asset Seizure $ 50 $ -
Civic Center Site $ - -
Drug Awareness (DARE) $ 1,050 700
Hyperbaric Chamber $ 10,200 22,400
Koo Estate Donation $ - -
Operating Donations $ 1,250 -
Recreation Donation Fund $ 8,300 -
Stillwell Children's Pool $ 500 15,000
Vehicle Replacement $ - -
Total General Fund Sub-Funds $ 21,350 $ 38,100
Est. FY 23/24
Beginning Revenues Transfers In Expenditures Transfers Out Est. FY 23/24
Ending
General Fund
General Fund $ 12,174,972 $ 31,263,187 $ - $ 30,315,086 $ 1,789,187 $ 11,333,886 Asset Seizure 1,784 50 - - - 1,834
Civic Center Site 1,421 - - - - 1,421
Drug Awareness (DARE) 622 1,050 - 700 - 972
Hyperbaric Chamber 20,401 10,200 - 22,400 - 8,201
Koo Estate Donation - - - - - -
Operating Donations 59,336 1,250 - - 60,586
Recreation Donation Fund 26,412 8,300 - - - 34,712
Stillwell Children's Pool 37,083 500 - 15,000 - 22,583
Vehicle Replacement - - - - -
General Fund Types $ 12,322,031 $ 31,284,537 $ - $ 30,353,186 $ 1,789,187 $ 11,464,195 Capital Improvement Fund
General Fund CIP $ 343,923 $ - $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - $ 343,923 Total Capital Improvement Fund $ 343,923 $ - $ 850,000 $ 850,000 $ - $ 343,923 FY 22/23 Misc. Adjustments Revenues Expenditures
General Fund $ 399,813 $ (680,834)
Hyperbaric Chamber 20,000 -
Local Streets and Roads - Measure X - 23,513
RSTP (750,000) -
CDBG Grant Fund - (400,000)
General Fund CIP (652,723) -
Local Water Project (625,187) (600,000)
Sewer Fund (600,000) -
Yount Trust Fund 2,500 -
Net Adjustments $ (2,205,597) $ (1,657,321)
PGCC 6-21-23

Est. FY 23/24
Beginning Revenues Transfers In Expenditures Transfers Out Est. FY 23/24
Ending
Internal Service Funds
Employee Benefits $ 32,325 $ 359,950 $ - $ 359,600 $ - $ 32,675 Liability Insurance 3,093 722,500 - 689,945 - 35,648
Workers Compensation 24,458 730,000 - 730,522 - 23,936
Total Internal Service Funds $ 59,876 $ 1,812,450 $ - $ 1,780,067 $ - $ 92,259 Enterprise Funds
Cemetery $ 790,326 $ 656,500 $ - $ 681,989 $ - $ 764,837 Golf 3,550,320 731,500 - 670,598 - 3,611,222
Local Water Project 1,173,297 951,000 625,187 1,036,449 600,000 1,113,035 Sewer 20,939,884 3,836,000 600,000 4,502,614 - 20,873,270 Total Enterprise Funds $ 26,453,827 $ 6,175,000 $ 1,225,187 $ 6,891,650 $ 600,000 $ 26,362,364 Special Revenue Funds
American Rescue Plan $ 112,729 $ 3,000 $ - $ 81,325 $ - $ 34,404 ASBS Grant 23,629 - - - - 23,629
Cal Home Reuse 173,631 2,000 - 24,000 - 151,631
Carillon 9,598 100 - - - 9,698
CDBG Grant 527,784 7,500 - 520,000 - 15,284
Chautaqua Hall 14,808 150 - - - 14,958
Coastal Conservancy Grant 82,521 1,200 - - - 83,721
Coronavirus Relief Fund - - - - - -
Downtown Business District 2,272 33,350 - 33,000 - 2,622 Environmental Enhancement 113,590 800 - - - 114,390
Fire Emergency Equipment 157,572 21,900 - 22,000 - 157,472 Gas Tax Fund 96,571 416,317 - 438,393 - 74,495
General Plan Maintenance Fee Fund 32,303 10,000 - - - 42,303 Hospitality Improvement District 1 489,400 - 488,000 - 1,401 Housing Fund 286,123 5,000 - 203,666 - 87,457
Library Building and Equipment 109,303 1,000 - 18,000 - 92,303 Lighthouse Fund 107,088 97,000 - 128,464 - 75,624
Library Book Donations 26,549 40,500 - 40,000 - 27,049
Local Streets and Roads 25,410 760,678 - 786,088 - -
McIndoo Donation 19,673 500 - - - 20,173
Museum Improvement 205,052 3,000 - - - 208,052
Operating Grants 691 591,906 - 591,896 - 701
Poetry Promotion 117,955 35,620 - 14,700 - 138,875
Public Safety Augmentation 127,856 152,000 314,000 463,860 - 129,996 Regional Surface Trans. (RSTP) - 750,000 - 750,000 - -
RMRA 132,710 372,339 - 505,049 - -
Senior Housing 10,311 100 - - - 10,411
Sewer Lateral Loans 209,977 10,000 - - - 219,977
Small Business Grant Fund 1,613 - - - - 1,613
State Franchise PEG 97,343 52,500 - 81,000 - 68,843
Strong Fund Disbursements 3,849 41,000 - - - 44,849
Supplemental Law Enforcement 40,368 247,750 - 277,470 - 10,648 Vehicle Abandonment 25,154 13,200 - - - 38,354
Yount Income 246 1,000 15,000 - - 16,246
Total Special Revenue Funds $ 2,894,280 $ 4,160,810 $ 329,000 $ 5,466,911 $ - $ 1,917,179 Permanent Funds
Cemetery Endowment $ 1,953,607 $ 110,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,063,607 Library Endowment 523,028 10,000 - - - 533,028
Yount Trust 790,564 15,000 - - 15,000 790,564
Total Permanent Funds $ 3,267,199 $ 135,000 $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 3,387,199 PGCC 6-21-23

The Fiscal Year 23/24 estimated ending “available” fund balance for the Enterprise Funds are as follows: Cemetery at $694,603, Golf Course at $583,685, Local Water Project at ($59,642), and Sewer at $5,578,542.

SECTION 11. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 estimated revenues, expenditures, and ending fund balances are adjusted for this amendment are referenced herein:

SECTION 12. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption hereof.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 21st day of June, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
BRIAN PIERIK, City Attorney
FY 22/23
Beginning Revenues Transfers In Expenditures Transfers Out Est. FY 22/23
Ending
General Fund $ 12,010,279 $ 30,852,813 $ 800,000 $ 30,576,120 $ 912,000 $ 12,174,972 Hyperbaric Chamber 12,146 30,600 - 22,345 - 20,401
Local Streets and Roads 955,564 774,992 - 1,705,146 - 25,410 Regional Surface Trans. (RSTP) - 332,430 - 332,430 - -
CDBG Grant 485,784 112,000 - 70,000 - 527,784
General Fund CIP (21,194) 1,647,510 588,000 1,870,393 - 343,923 Local Water Project Fund 1,434,833 631,000 100,000 992,536 - 1,173,297 Sewer Fund 21,575,089 3,716,666 - 4,351,871 - 20,939,884 Yount Trust 790,564 7,500 - - 7,500 790,564
Fund Title
PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Lover's Point Pier Repair Project This item was continued from Council's May 17 and June 7, 2023 meetings.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive Report

2. Provide staff with direction on pursuing the interim repair design solution

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item

DISCUSSION
Background
In January 2021, during winter storms the seaward tip of the Lovers Point Pier was damaged by wave runup and wave impact forces. A geotechnical and coastal engineering firm was consulted to provide repair recommendations. It was determined that because minimal information on the existing pier structure was available, additional exploration was needed prior to developing repair recommendations.

The tip of the pier was closed to ensure safety and will remain closed until repairs can be made.

As part of the FY21/22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), $100,000 was budgeted for the Lovers Point Pier Project. The intent of the project is to obtain information on the pier’s construction and current condition through exploratory investigation and provide an analysis of possible repair options.

In December 2021, the City Council authorized an agreement with GHD in an amount not to exceed $99,852. The scope of services for this agreement included:

Performing a pier investigation
Developing a Conditions Assessment Report
Develop an Interim Repair Design and a corresponding plan set, and Providing permit and grant support
Condition Assessment
Following execution of the agreement, GHD and their subconsultants Haro Kasunich and Associates (HKA) began the pier assessment and investigation. The pier investigation began with a review of historical documentation and assessment of the damage caused during the storms. The internal structures of the pier were assessed by boreholes and core samplings, which allowed for review of the PGCC 6-21-23

structures of the pier were assessed by boreholes and core samplings, which allowed for review of the composition and strength of the pier structure. A wave runup analysis, riprap revetement size analysis and visual inspections were also performed. Additional details and information on these data inputs can be found in the Pier Condition Assessment, included as Attachment 1.

Assessment Takeaways
The pier is primarily a gravity structure that is not column supported or reliant on the strength of concrete beams. The gravity structure is comprised of interbedded layers of concrete, a matrix of concrete bonded to rip rap and rip rap rock. There are voids and joints within and between the interbedded layers due to the improvements made over the years to the 100+ year old structure. Some of the concrete is weak, other segments are strong.

The 1980s renovation, which reinforced concrete walls and slabs on the upper and lower decks, encased the weaker concrete and rip rap matrix that makes up a good chunk of the structure. These reinforced concrete walls and slabs provide a protective layer for the weaker legacy material. The reinforced concrete improvements included iron and carbon rebar which has corroded and expanded over time resulting in severe cracking and spalling of the concrete further exposing the rebar. The rebar supporting the concrete walls severely corroded at the east end of the upper deck and a panel of concrete dislodged and feel into the ocean during the large wave events.

Ultimately, the assessment reveals that the pier has performed as expected based on its construction.

Although the gravity structure is not in danger of a catastrophic failure at this time, as the reinforced concrete walls continue to fail, exposing more of the vulnerable core of the gravity structure, the rate of deterioration will accelerate. If nothing is done to reinforce and stabilize the core of the structure, the damage will get worse in the coming decade.

The 100+-year-old pier structure has had a big influence on beach creation at Lovers Point, if the pier and rock jetty were to cease to exist, the sediment flow and accumulation patterns in the vicinity of the pier would be altered to the detriment of public access and recreational beach usage.

Ultimately, the report recommends implementation of the near-term repair solution (“interim repair”) as soon as possible.

Interim Repair Solution
As an element of the scope of work, GHD prepared an interim repair option and a set of plans. The interim repair solution will address the identified deficiencies and allow for improvements that will enhance the safety of the pier structure. The interim repair plan is included as Attachment 2.

The interim repair project scope of work includes:

Installing reinforced shotcrete fascia on the existing pier wall face. This will act as a structural element as well as cosmetic surfacing that matches the adjacent concrete Replacement of the concrete at the edges and top of the pier with a sound concrete edge Replacing concrete footings and guard rail along the pier perimeter Demolish a 7” segment of the existing slab and pouring a new 7” thick monolithic slab on the seaward 75 feet of the upper deck
Replacement of the concrete slab on the entire lower pier deck Reform and resurface the lower staircase that extends into the water from the lower pier deck The engineers' estimate for the interim repair solution is $1.35 million. The interim repair solution is anticipated to last upwards of 20 years.

PGCC 6-21-23

Permitting
This project will require permits from the California Coastal Commission. City staff has preliminarily discussed the interim repair solution with staff members at the California Coastal Commission. These high-level conversations have been intended to begin dialogue in advance of a formal application. A formal permit application will only be submitted if the City Council expresses interest in pursuing the interim repair option.

Grant Support
As an element of their scope of work, GHD is actively researching grant opportunities for the interim repair solution. The availability of grants is largely time dependent, as grants have specific periods for submittal. If the City Council expresses interest in pursuing the interim repair solution, GHD can take a deeper dive into the availability of grant funding currently available. Staff can return with updates and options for funding the interim repair solution.

Long Term Repair Options
As an element of the Conditions Assessment Report, some high-level long term repair alternatives were explored. The intention of this high-level analysis was to conceptually understand the methods by which a long-term repair solution could be achieved and the potential drawbacks of each approach. This list is not an exhaustive list of all potential long term repair options, nor is it a deep dive into how approaches could be implemented.

Long-Term Repair Alternative 1 – Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment and construction of a new wharf supported by deep foundations
Not recommended as it will result in Lovers Point Beach shrinking and creating negative recreational impacts for the public
Long-Term Repair Alternative 2 – Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment and construction of a new concrete gravity structure supported directly upon the granite bedrock formation that makes up the sea floor
Difficult from a constructability standpoint as there are several environmental impacts during construction
This alternative would also result in increased wave runup and overtopping due to removal of the rip-rap revetment
Long-Term Repair Alternative 3 – Removal of existing concrete pier gravity structures above 0.0 feet NAVD88 and construction of new pier atop old concrete foundation elements and riprap.

Less of an environmental impact than option 2, but this alternative relies on older foundations and undersized riprap for support/protection and may leave the pier vulnerable Long-Term Repair Alternative 4- Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment & construction of a rip-rap jetty in the same footprint with adequately sized rock to an approximate elevation of +20.0 feet NAVD88. Construct a concrete gravity structure atop the rip-rap jerry as a causeway for recreational access
This alternative is preferred from a constructability, environmental impact, and long-term protection standpoint
Ultimately, a feasibility study and a deeper analysis of the long-term repair alternatives would need to be explored and detailed coastal engineering would be required if the City Council were to express interest in pursuit of a long-term repair option.

OPTIONS
PGCC 6-21-23

Do nothing. This is not recommended as damage will continue, as well as accelerate and use of the pier will be beyond an ordinary level of risk

1. Pursue Near Term Repair. This option is preferred as it provides the City with a method to make a repair, reopen the pier and prevent accelerated damage. Moreover, the repair will provide a solution for the next 20 years. The immediate next step would be to explore grant and funding opportunities and necessary permitting.

2. Pursue Long Term Repair. Pursuit of a long-term repair will be a lengthy endeavor and would require significant funding to perform a feasibility study of the long-term options, and design, engineer and permit a long-term repair. Moreover, a long-term repair is anticipated to be significantly more costly than the interim repair.

3. FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report. This report was prepared, and all the subsequent investigative tasks, were performed under the existing agreement with GHD. To date, 89% of the budget has been expended.

If the Council expresses interest in the interim repair option, GHD will perform an analysis of available grants and staff will return with potential funding options.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Attachments 1-Conditions Assessment Report
Interim Repair Plans
Staff PPT
Public Comment
PGCC 6-21-23

HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS
116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Project No. M11897.1
13 March 2023

MEMORANDUM
To: GHD
669 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Attention: Robert Sherwood, PE (805-858-3142)
From: Mark Foxx, CEG 1493 and Moses Cuprill, CE 78904
Haro Kasunich and Associates Inc.

Subject: Lovers Point Pier Condition Assessment
Reference: Lovers Point Pier
Pacific Grove, CA
Dear Mr. Sherwood:

During the January 2021 winter storms, the seaward tip of the Lovers Point Pier was severely damaged by ocean wave runup and wave impact forces. Waves were reportedly observed breaking on the pier structure and wave runup was flowing across the concrete deck that forms the surface of the pier.

After that damage the City of Pacific Grove retained Haro Kasunich and Associates Inc. (HKA), who briefly evaluated the damage to the pier and recommended a more in-depth assessment of the pier's condition. In March 2022 the City of Pacific Grove retained GHD who in turn retained HKA to perform that assessment. This Memorandum presents the results of the assessment that evaluates the condition of the upper and lower deck of the pier.

In preparation of this assessment HKA made several site visits to observe the condition of the pier, had several working meetings with GHD, and had an additional in-house working meeting to develop alternatives. Based on review of historic documents HKA understands that circa 1900 there was originally a granite quarry at Lover's Point which enlarged the cove where the Lovers Point beaches exist today.

Subsequently a “cement pier” was constructed before 1907, replacing an earlier wooden wharf. In 1909 the cement pier was extended further into the bay by constructing two large 25 to 30 feet tall concrete monoliths and tipping them off the end of the pier. The monoliths were covered with granite rocks and cement. Wooden piles were then driven into the end of the cement pier and founded upon the cemented granite rocks creating a wooden wharf extension for access. The pier was improved in the 1980’s with the construction of concrete walls and fascia creating a shell around the pier and lower dock, with that most recent renovative work on the pier utilizing plans by J. D. Raggett and Associates, dated 2-17-82.

The pier is oriented towards the northeast from where it joins the Lovers Point shoreline. It was founded in part on a small natural ridge of granitic bedrock that extends into Monterey Bay. The orientation of the pier and the presence of the prominent Lovers Point immediately to the northwest serves to protect it from the largest ocean swells that enter Monterey Bay from the west and northwest.

PGCC 6-21-23

2 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Despite the protection afforded by this location, the pier was damaged in January 2021 during a large wave event coincident with a king tide. The pier sustained damage from wave attack that fractured and dislodged large pieces of the concrete wall and fascia that was constructed in 1982, exposing the internal elements of the pier to more direct wave impact.

A photograph of the pier from September 2015, before the January 2021 damage occurred is shown below:

Photograph 1: September 2015 Aerial Photograph
(courtesy www.californiacoastline.org)
From our observations of the damaged pier, it appears that the pier was originally constructed partially as a wooden wharf that was subsequently surrounded with quarry stone and concrete, with rip rap boulders being placed along the side of the pier that is more exposed to the ocean. In January 2021, at the tip of the pier, several large pieces of concrete fascia were stripped off the structure by wave impact. The ends of two decayed wooden beams are visible where voids were created where the concrete fascia was stripped off the pier. The reinforcing ties that anchored the fascia to the concrete deeper within the pier structure are rusted away. This created a situation where the fascia was unattached or barely attached to the main bulk of the pier structure. The concrete fascia of the pier has been historically patched based on different fascia thicknesses and concrete types that are now visible. There is evidence that at least four generations of fencing that guard visitors from the drop offs at the edges of the pier have been installed at PGCC 6-21-23

3 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 the edges of the upper pier surface for safety. Each generation of the fencing has been damaged by corrosion and wave impact, eventually leading to its replacement. A photo of the pier showing both the upper pier surface and lower pier surface, as well as the protective rip-rap revetment on the downcoast side is shown below:

Photograph 2: May 23, 2022 Aerial Photograph
Showing Damage at End of Pier
(Photo by HKA)
Two additional photos show other perspectives and details of the damage to the end of the pier.

PGCC 6-21-23

4 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Photograph 3: 2022 Aerial Photograph
Showing Damage at End of Pier
(Photo by GHD)
Photograph 4: May 23, 2022 Aerial Photograph
Showing Damage at End of Pier
(Photo by HKA)
PGCC 6-21-23

5 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Since the 100+ year old pier structure and rock jetty structure had a big influence on beach creation at Lovers Point, if the pier and rock jetty were to cease to exist, then the littoral processes and coastal sediment flow and accumulation patterns in the vicinity of the pier will be altered, to the detriment of public access and recreational beach usage. The Lovers Point beach would be adversely affected, directly impacting public recreational beach usage. Photograph 5 below shows the public enjoying the beach in early April 2022.

Photograph 5: April 7, 2022 Aerial Photograph
Showing Public Beach Usage
(Photo by HKA)
To assess the internal structure of the pier we utilized a rotary percussion drill to advance three 2-inch diameter holes that were 9 to 11 feet deep. Two were drilled on the upper deck of the pier and one on the lower deck surface. The upper pier boreholes revealed concrete in the top 21 to 24 inches, with soft, relatively weak concrete with embedded granitic rubble down to a depth of about 6 feet. Below 6 feet was interbedded layers of granite rip rap, concrete, and concrete bonded to rip rap. Subsequently these two boreholes were drilled to refusal on granite bedrock or granite rip-rap at depths of 9 and 10 feet. On the lower elevation pier deck platform surface that faces southeast, a percussion borehole revealed an 18- inch-thick concrete section, with soft, relatively weak concrete down to a depth of about 3 feet, then harder concrete with embedded granitic rubble down to a depth of about 8 feet. The native granite bedrock formation was encountered below a depth of 8 feet deep.

PGCC 6-21-23

6 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 We subsequently diamond core drilled 3 holes in the pier in similar locations to the percussion drilled boreholes described above. We recovered continuous core samples from each hole, and this allowed visual inspection of the concrete, rubble, and other materials from the interior of the pier structure. At the conclusion of drilling, all holes were plugged with high strength concrete grout.

Laboratory testing of core samples derived from the diamond drilling were visually inspected and tested for compressive strength. One of the concrete samples from the upper deck had a compressive strength of over 7,000 psi. The remaining samples tested within the upper 5 feet had had test results that indicated between 3,100 and 4,400 psi, as well as weaker samples that were not tested, which is below the ACI 318-22 code required minimum of 5,000 psi. The weaker zones of concrete were easily drilled with the percussion drill and the concrete became disaggregated into a mixture of sand grains and cured cement.

Visual observation of the pier (see photographs 2, 3 and 4 above) shows that in the area where the concrete fascia has been stripped off, the internal structure of the pier is an assorted assemblage of sound concrete, granitic rubble in a weaker concrete matrix, occasional voids, and old wooden components. At the seaward end of the pier, both upcoast and downcoast from the damaged area, the remaining fascia exhibits fractures and differential displacement across the fractures. A network of cracks exists in the slabs that form the top of both the upper and lower pier walking surfaces. These cracks in the horizontal walking surfaces do not exhibit vertical displacement.

The lower pier deck has a dense network of surface cracks on its walking surface. Erosion and spalling of the concrete is occurring along the cracks. The 1982 Raggett plans specified a minimum of 1-1/2 inches of concrete cover over uncoated carbon steel reinforcing bar for the slabs and mostly 3 inches of concrete cover elsewhere, with mild steel welded wire mesh being used as reinforcing in thin air blown mortar fascia. Typical practice in more recent years involves epoxy coated, MMFX (Chromx) or stainless-steel rebar for most marine applications, with robust reinforcing and thickened wall sections capable of counteracting wave impact forces.

Severe corrosion of the reinforcing in the pier concrete and air blown mortar (shotcrete) is now evident in many places. Where corrosion has occurred and the iron in the reinforcing steel has oxidized forming iron oxide reddish brown staining is evident. This chemical alteration of the reinforcing steel involves the iron expanding in volume as it oxidizes and the rebar corrosion causing concrete deterioration through delamination and spalling of the concrete cover, reducing the cross-sectional area of the reinforcement, and reducing its bond to the concrete. These effects grossly reduce the strength of reinforced concrete and make concrete beams and columns vulnerable to deflection and rupture. The Lovers Point pier is primarily a massive gravity structure that is not column supported or reliant on the strength of concrete beams. One exception is the stairs going from the lower pier deck surface to the upper pier deck surface are built with a hollow area underneath, which does rely on reinforced concrete integrity to prevent its sudden structural collapse. The vertical concrete/shotcrete walls around the pier also rely on reinforced concrete integrity to prevent the pier from being eroded away, however that process is more incrementally progressive.

The pier is fronted on the Lovers Point side (downcoast side) by a rip-rap revetment. This revetment appears to have been enlarged and extended to protect the end of the pier between 1979 and 1987.

PGCC 6-21-23

7 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Photograph 6: 1979 Aerial Photograph
Showing Rip-rap Revetment at Pier
(courtesy of californiacoastline.org)
PGCC 6-21-23

8 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Photograph 7: June 1987 Aerial Photograph
Showing Enlarged Rip-rap Revetment at Pier
(courtesy of californiacoastline.org)
We field surveyed and prepared a 440-foot-long profile that extended from the upper pier deck surface (at about Elevation + 14 feet NAVD88) to the limit of the revetment (at about Elevation 0 feet NAVD88) to an elevation of about -23 feet NAVD88. We examined the quarry stone size (tonnage) and calculated the stability of the quarry stones in the steeply sloping toe of the structure. We utilized estimated extreme present-day ocean stillwater levels (9.9 Feet NAVD88) and used a low risk aversion with high emissions (these have a 66% probability of occurrence if predicted high emission scenarios are realized) stillwater level of 11.7 for year 2072 in our analysis. More extreme sea level rise is predicted to occur if lower probability (higher risk aversion) scenarios are realized. We note that the predicted 2072 (50 year) sea level rise scenario we utilized in our analysis has the ocean stillwater level (at extreme tide with storm surge and wave pileup conditions) at an elevation approximately 2.30 feet below the upper surface of the pier.

A wave runup analysis was conducted utilizing methodologies outlined in the 1984 Army Corps of Engineers Shore Protection Manual (SPM) and the computer program by Noble Coastal Engineers WRUPTM. The analysis was performed on Cross Section A field surveyed by HKA as described above.

Design still water levels of 9.9 feet NAVD88 (Year 2022) and 11.7 feet NAVD88 (Year 2072) where used in the analysis.

PGCC 6-21-23

9 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 In the analysis we allowed the software to iterate until the maximum breaking wave and corresponding wave runup elevation was determined. We also specified the deep-water wave height using a simulated near shore wave model from an adjacent project which predicted breaking waves closer to the structure.

Both scenarios are possible and should be considered. A summary of results is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of results from Waverunup analysis
Year SWL
(ft.)
Ho'
(ft.) T (sec.) Hb (ft.) db (ft.)
Breaking Wave
Distance from
Pier (ft.)
Runup Elevation (ft.

NAVD88)
2022

9.9 7.0 16 14.4 9.9 44.0 32.1

9.9 9.3 16 15.5 16.2 122.6 37.5
2072

11.7 7.0 16 14.4 9.9 41.6 34.9

11.7 10.9 16 17.3 18.2 129.0 44.5
Notes: SWL = Still Water Level
Ho’ = Unrefracted Deep Water Wave Height
T = Wave Period
Hb = Breaking wave Height
db = Breaking wave depth
The results indicate that at present day during the worst-case storm conditions wave runup elevations can vary between 32 and 38 feet NAVD88. That equates to approximately 20 feet of vertical wave spray above the top of the pier which sits at elevation 14.5 feet NAVD88. In 50 years, wave runup elevations vary between 35 and 45 feet NAVD88 which equates to an average of 25 feet of vertical spray above the top of the pier. Detailed spreadsheets and raw data software outputs are included in Appendix B.

The larger of the breaking wave heights from the wave runup analysis where selected for each still water level scenario and a wave force analysis was performed to determine wave pressures acting on the existing vertical pier walls. Wave forces were calculated using the following methods. 1) Broken Waves Seaward of Stillwater Line (Shore Protection Manual Volume II, 1984) 2) Minikin Method (Shore Protection Manual Volume II, 1984) 3) Breaking Wave Loads on Vertical Wall (FEMA Coastal Construction Manual) The results of the analysis indicate that presently during worst case storm conditions dynamic wave impact pressures can be up to approximately 500 psf for broken waves rolling into the pier as white water and 1000 psf for waves breaking as green water on the structure. In 50 years from now those forces may reach 600 psf and 1,660 psf for broken waves rolling into the structure and breaking waves on the structure, respectively.

Details and spreadsheets used for calculating wave pressures utilizing the three different wave force analysis methodologies are included in Appendix B.

A rip-rap size analysis was performed in the zone of maximum wave impact at the revetment fronting the pier. The weight and surface area of 122 boulders was inventoried and a mean boulder size of 2 tons was determined. Using the wave heights generated in the wave runup analysis the size requirement of rip rap was determined for the 10:1 (H:V) slope fronting the pier. In present day storm conditions 1 ton rock is required for large waves braking offshore and rolling in as white water. Larger 4-ton rock is required for moderate to large waves breaking directly on the revetment. In 50 years from now (2072) 6-ton rock is required for larger waves breaking on the rip rap at the 10:1 (H:V) slope. Our analysis indicates that the PGCC 6-21-23

10 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 existing rip-rap revetment is marginally stable when compared with wave force analysis under present day stillwater levels. If sea level rise increases the stillwater level by nearly 2 feet as predicted in the coming 50 years (2072) the rip rap revetment structure will be considerably undersized for the wave forces. Undersized rip rap revetment structures are prone to having their boulders plucked by waves and ultimately slump to a flatter slope gradient becoming less effective. Since the existing revetment sits at a relatively flat gradient at present increased runup and overtopping will be the most prevalent change in the future. Actual sea level rise measured from tidal gauges over the past several decades indicate a much slower rate of sea level rise. However larger increments of sea level rise may occur as melting of ice sheets or other contributing factors occur in the future. Our conclusion is that we expect the existing revetment at the current slope gradient of 10H:1V will continue to perform well for 50 years. As the Stillwater level increases over time the revetment will slowly become less effective at reducing wave runup and overtopping and greater wave forces will occur against the concrete pier structure. Ultimately the revetment will need to be reinforced with a layer of larger quarry stones or precast concrete elements (e.g., dolos, tetra pods, tribars etc.) Refer to Appendix C for an inventory spreadsheet and rip-rap sizing calculations.

The pier is performing as expected for a massive gravity structure founded partly on concrete rubble and rip-rap and partly on granite bedrock. The gravity structure is comprised of interbedded layers of concrete, a matrix of concrete bonded to rip rap, and rip rap rock. There are void and joints within and between the interbedded layers. Some of the concrete is very punky/weak. The entire pier was renovated in the early 1980’s with reinforced concrete walls and slabs on the upper and lower decks. These renovations encased the weaker concrete and rip rap matrix that makes up most of the gravity structure.

The reinforced concrete walls and slabs provide a protective layer for the much weaker legacy material making up the mass. The reinforced concrete improvements included iron and carbon rebar which has corroded and expanded overtime resulting in severe cracking and spalling of the concrete further exposing rebar. The rebar hangars supporting the concrete walls are severely corroded at the east end of the upper deck and a panel of concrete dislodged and fell into the ocean during a large wave event. The gravity structure is not in danger of a catastrophic failure at this time. However, as the reinforced concrete walls continue to fail exposing more of the vulnerable core of the gravity structure, we expect that the rate of deterioration will accelerate. In other words, this damage will only get worse in the coming decade, if nothing is done to reinforce and stabilize the core of the gravity structure.

APPENDIX A to this MEMORANDUM shows numerous photographs of specific conditions found along the pier that warrant action.

Recommendations:

If nothing is done, then: a) Damage will continue as well as accelerate; b) Concrete debris will remain in the ocean water and more will follow; and c) Use of the pier by the public will be beyond an ordinary level of risk.

Ordinary risk is defined as the following:
 Failures only affecting owners/occupants of a structure rather than a substantial population.  No significant potential for loss of life or serious physical injury.  No collapse of structures; structural damage limited to repairable damage in most cases.

This alternative may present an unacceptable level of risk to the City assuming the pier would remain accessible for use by the public.

Appendix A to this Memorandum includes a detailed description of various elements of the pier, their location, our observation of their condition, problems that we noted, and conceptual recommendations that can be solutions to those problems.

PGCC 6-21-23

11 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 In addition to this Memorandum, we (HKA) have prepared a set of short-term ("Interim") repair plans for the pier which will remediate most of the problems with the pier for the near future (10 or perhaps 20 years). Those plans will be submitted separately.

Removing concrete debris should be considered. This includes the pieces of concrete fascia resting on the seafloor in shallow water, as well as loose pieces of fascia that are partly detached from the pier structure. The concrete in the ocean water appears to have been colonized with marine life, and the disturbance associated removal of part or all of it is likely to do more harm than good. Loose pieces of fascia that are partly detached from the pier structure can be removed with a small crane or perhaps an excavator operated from the intact part of the concrete pier deck. A workman would likely need to assist to place slings around or anchor bolts into the concrete debris pieces so they can be lifted, placed in a truck, and transported to an appropriate disposal site. This alternative is environmentally appropriate.

Development and installation of a short-term repair (an "Interim" repair) is warranted as soon as possible.

This includes:

A. Monitor surf forecasts and close the entire pier to public use for temporary periods of time if adverse (dangerous) conditions are forecast. If wave overtopping of the pier deck or large waves are forecast during king tide periods, close the pier to public use. Monitoring should include tidal conditions, ocean swell size, direction, and period; This is prudent to maintain an acceptable level of risk.

B. Monitor future deterioration until the short-term "Interim" repair work is completed. This involves periodically inspecting the condition of the pier to assess if future damage is occurring. This is prudent no matter which other actions are taken. As part of the monitoring, supplemental recommendations should be made to the City, so those can be implemented as appropriate.

C. Design and installation of a new structural fascia that wraps around the tip of the pier and allows restoration of public use of the tip of the pier. The fascia should act as a short-term structural element as well as a cosmetic surfacing that matches the adjacent concrete surfaces. Inclusion of soil nail restraints within the fascia to enable it to act as a long-term retaining structure has been considered; however, this is more appropriate for consideration during development of a longterm repair plan for the pier.

D. Replacement of the concrete at the edges of and the tip of the pier with a sound concrete edge beam that replaces the cracked and split concrete there.

E. Replacement of the fencing along the margins of the pier, with the new fencing founded in the new concrete edge beam, which should be done in a manner that prevents corrosion of the fencing material from damaging the concrete. The fence posts should be embedded in the concrete in a manner that will minimize the chances of wave impact loading on the fence resulting in causing the edge beam to crack.

F. Replacement of the concrete slab on the seaward 75 feet of the upper pier deck.

G. Replacement of the concrete slab on the entire lower pier deck.

H. Reforming and resurfacing the stairs that extend into the water from the lower pier deck surface in a code compliant manner. A stainless-steel handrail should be provided.

I. Further evaluation of the stairs that extend from the upper pier deck surface to the lower pier deck surface by a structural engineer. If they must be replaced, that should be done in a code compliant manner. A stainless-steel handrail should be provided. If the structural engineer deems that repairs will be sufficient to allow use of the stairs, they should define those.

J. Consideration of whether a code compliant guard should be installed at the perimeter of the lower pier deck surface where there is an abrupt drop off into the ocean.

K. Maintaining new fencing in a location far enough landward of the damaged part of the pier so that users of the pier are only able to access the stable part of the pier. This involves placement of a new fence to prevent access to approximately the seaward 10 feet of the pier.

L. Further evaluation of the small building that is on the approach to the pier by a structural engineer. If it is unsafe to enter and must be replaced, that should be done in a code compliant manner. If the structural engineer deems that repairs will be sufficient to allow use of the building, PGCC 6-21-23

12 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 they should define those. As an alternative the structure could be resurfaced with reinforced concrete and infilled with control density fill.

Long Term Repair Alternatives
Over the next 50 years the Lovers Point Pier will be subjected to an increase in sea-level rise, storm surge, wave runup, wave overtopping, and wave impact forces. We expect that the portion of the rip rap revetment at a 10H:1V slope gradient will perform well for the next 30 years. The pier structures even with the interim repairs implemented should be expected to deteriorate over the next couple of decades to the point that it will need to be repaired again with a similar interim concept or completely replaced with a new coastal structure. During this time frame the repair should be monitored at the beginning and end of each winter storm season as well as at the end of each large wave event accompanied with hightides. The monitoring should be conducted by a registered civil or structural engineer specializing in marine structures.

The interim repair will provide adequate time for an investigation, alternatives analysis, design, community outreach, permitting, and construction of a replacement coastal structure. We have developed several alternatives for the long-term repair of the pier structure for consideration. Each repair alternative will require a specific type of investigation:

Long-Term Repair Alternative 1. Total removal of the existing pier and rip-rap revetment and construction of a new wharf supported by deep foundations. The wharf would occupy a similar footprint to that of the existing pier. This alternative is not recommended because it would allow wave and tidal movement to propagate beneath the wharf and disrupt the littoral drift process which provides the Lovers Point beach with sand. Lack of sand build up in the cove will shrink the beach and create a negative recreational impact for the public.

Long-Term Repair Alternative 2. Total removal of the existing pier and rip-rap revetment and construction of a new concrete gravity structure in a similar footprint supported directly upon the granite bedrock formation that makes up the sea floor. The structure would bear directly upon the seafloor and prevent the movement of water beneath it. This alternative would not disrupt the littoral drift process, however, the environmental impacts during construction such as containing concrete from the tidal zone make this alternative not preferred from a constructability standpoint.

This alternative would also generate higher wave runup and overtopping scenarios since the rip rap revetment would be removed.

Long-Term Repair Alternative 3. Removal of existing concrete pier gravity structures above 0.0 feet NAVD88 and construction of new pier atop old concrete foundation elements and rip rap.

This alternative is preferable to alternative 2 from an environmental impact and constructability standpoint, however, the design relies on older foundations and undersized rip rap for support and protection. Over the next 50 years the existing rip rap may be dislodged from the pier base leaving it vulnerable undermining as well as increased impact from wave runup and overtopping events.

Long-Term Repair Alternative 4. Complete removal of existing pier and rip rap. Construct a rip rap jetty in the same footprint with adequately sized rock to approximate elevation +20.0 feet (+/- 5 feet) NAVD88. Construct a concrete gravity structure atop the rip-rap jetty as a causeway for recreational access. This alterative is preferred from a constructability, environmental impact, and long-term protection standpoint.

To properly design and permit Long-Term Repair Alternative 4, more subsurface investigation and more detailed coastal engineering analysis is required for site specific geometry of the proposed long-term PGCC 6-21-23

13 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 repair. Haro, Kasunich & Associates, Inc. proposes six additional continuous cores drilled through the existing pier, rip-rap, and into the underlying bedrock, three additional field surveyed cross sections, and an in-depth coastal and geotechnical engineering analysis which includes alternative analysis and wave runup and force analysis on the chosen alternative geometry. Geotechnical design parameters for temporary shoring, retaining walls, and foundation would also be provided. A cost estimate can be prepared at your request.

PGCC 6-21-23

14 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

APPENDIX A

ANNOTATED PHOTOGRAPHS OF CONDITIONS

FOUND ALONG THE LOVERS POINT PIER

WITH OBSERVATIONS OF PROBLEMS

AND RECOMMENDED SOLUTIONS
PGCC 6-21-23

15 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Annotated Photographs of Conditions
Found Along the Lovers Point Pier
With Observations of Problems
and Recommended Solutions
Preliminary Draft 10-29-2022
Location 1 : Lower Pier Surface
Appendix A Photo 1: Lower Pier Surface
PGCC 6-21-23

16 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 2: Lower Pier Deck Surface
Appendix A Photo 3: Lower Pier Deck Surface
Problems:
1) Extensive cracking of concrete slab. Large cracking appears to be combination of construction joint cracking and cracking from shrinkage during curing as well as concrete erosion and spalling. 2) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar at slab edges. 3) Slab appears to slope toward the upper pier and may pond water. 4) Lack of fence or guard at drop off into ocean. Safety Hazard.

Solutions:
1) Remove corroded concrete in spalled areas, replace damaged reinforcing, reform damaged area, and pour new concrete.
2) Install new 6- to 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete topping slab over entire existing lower deck.

Slope surface for positive drainage.
3) Use commercial marine grade elastomeric joint filler between new dock slab and bottom of upper pier wall.
4) Use heavy broom non-slip finish or similar on the new slab. 4) Resurface other repaired areas to match existing.
5) Install fence or guard at drop off
6) Install safety signage.

PGCC 6-21-23

17 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 2 : Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Ocean

Appendix A Photo 4: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Ocean

Appendix A Photo 5: Stairs from Lower Pier Surface to Ocean PGCC 6-21-23

18 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bars.
2) Cracking of concrete.
3) Erosion and abrasion of stair treads. Safety Hazard. 4) Irregular stair rise and run. Safety Hazard.
5) Lack of handrail. Safety Hazard.

Solutions:
1) Remedy Safety Hazards with guards, handrail, and signage. 2) Reform and pour new concrete stairs with minimum 4-foot width, uniform rise and run of treads and aluminum or stainless-steel stair treads with nosing. 3) Remove eroded/corroded concrete, replace damaged reinforcing, reform damaged area, and pour new concrete in adjacent areas.

PGCC 6-21-23

19 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 3 : Stairs from Upper Pier Deck Surface to Lower Pier Deck Surface Appendix A Photo 6: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Upper Pier Deck Surface with Interior Storage Room Underneath
Appendix A Photo 7: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Upper Pier Deck Surface with Interior Storage Room Underneath
PGCC 6-21-23

20 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202

Appendix A Photo 8: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Upper Pier Deck Surface with Interior Storage Room Underneath
Appendix A Photo 9: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Upper Pier Deck Surface with Interior Storage Room Underneath
Appendix A Photo 10: Stairs from Lower Pier Deck Surface to Upper Pier Deck Surface with Interior Storage Room Underneath
PGCC 6-21-23

21 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar.
2) Cracking of concrete.
3) Structural distress from concrete reinforcing failure.

Solutions:
1) Inspect interior room.
2) Structural Engineer to evaluate stairs and stability of roof and walls of interior room. This evaluation may conclude a complete rebuild of the stairs is most cost effective or may find that resurfacing the concrete and completely filling the interior room under the stairs with concrete control density fill is adequate.
3) Remove corroded concrete, replace damaged reinforcing, sandblast surface, reform damaged area and pour new concrete.
4) Resurface repaired areas to match existing.

PGCC 6-21-23

22 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 4 : Upper Pier Deck Surface
Appendix A Photo 11: Upper Pier Deck Surface Showing Cracking Of Slab Appendix A Photo 12: Upper Pier Deck Surface Showing Construction Joint and Cracks PGCC 6-21-23

23 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 13: Upper Pier Surface
Problems:
1) Extensive cracking of concrete slab. Cracking appears to be combination of construction joint cracking, cracking from shrinkage during curing as well as from settlement and flexure of the massive concrete structure.
2) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar at slab edges.

Solutions:
1) Remove 8-inch of cracked concrete in the seaward 75 feet of pier surface area. 2) Install new 8-inch-thick reinforced topping slab over entire existing slab. Slope surface for positive drainage.
3) Utilize heavy broom non-slip finish on new slab.
4) Use marine elastomeric filler in new control joints.

PGCC 6-21-23

24 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 5 : Upper Pier Deck Edge Toward Lower Pier Deck Appendix A Photo 14: Upper Pier Deck Edge Toward Lower Pier Deck Appendix A Photo 15: Upper Pier Deck Edge Toward Lower Pier PGCC 6-21-23

25 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 16: Upper Pier Deck Edge Toward Lower Pier Deck Along this edge the upper pier deck concrete slab is at the same elevation as the top of the wall that descends to the lower pier deck surface. The concrete has spalled in numerous areas, often near the location of present or former railing posts and corroded rebar is visible.

Problems:
1) Extensive cracking of concrete slab. Cracking appears to be combination of construction joint cracking, cracking from shrinkage during curing as well as from settlement and flexure of the massive concrete structure.
2) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar at slab edges.

Solutions:
1) Remove corroded concrete in spalled areas, replace damaged reinforcing, reform damaged area and pour new concrete.
2) Install new 8-inch-thick reinforced topping slab over entire existing slab. Slope surface for positive drainage.
3) Use marine elastomeric filler between new lower deck concrete slab and bottom of upper pier deck wall.
4) Resurface repaired areas to match existing.
5) Install fence or guard at drop off.
6) Install safety signage.

PGCC 6-21-23

26 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 6 : Upper Pier Deck Edge Toward Lovers Point
Along this edge there is a wall along the edge of the pier and the upper pier concrete slab is about 6 inches in elevation below the top of the wall that descends to the adjacent rip-rap. The concrete has severely cracked in numerous areas due to corrosion (chemical alteration) of the reinforcing steel that involves the iron expanding in volume as it oxidizes and causes concrete deterioration by delamination and spalling of the concrete cover and reducing the cross-sectional area of the reinforcement and reducing its bond to the concrete. Prominent cracks often parallel with the wall and near the location of present or former railing posts. Cracking is also evident that crosses the top of the wall, and corroded rebar is visible.

Appendix A Photo 17: Showing Prominent Cracks Parallel to Top of Wall Along Upper Pier Edge Toward Lovers Point
PGCC 6-21-23

27 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 18: Showing Prominent Crack Across Top of Wall Along Upper Pier Edge Toward Lovers Point
Appendix A Photo 19:Showing Crack Location Along Old Railing Post Alignment at Upper Pier Edge Toward Lovers Point
PGCC 6-21-23

28 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Extensive cracking of top of wall at upper pier deck edge toward Lovers Point. Large cracking appears to be associated with corrosion of former railing posts, as well as from settlement and flexure of the massive concrete structure. Concrete erosion is evident. 2) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar in near surface areas.

Solutions:
1) Remove upper portion of wall at upper pier deck edge toward Lovers Point and reform a new concrete beam at the edges of and the tip of the pier with a sound concrete edge beam that replaces the cracked and split concrete there, so the new concrete beam can be used as a stable foundation for new corrosion resistant railings. After demolition, form new concrete beam designed as a gravity structure with an integrated sleeved foundation for new railings, and pour new concrete.
2) Integrate work so that the adjacent new 8-inch-thick reinforced topping slab is structurally tied to the new concrete beam with reinforcing bar.
3) Use marine elastomeric filler in upper portion of new railing foundation sleeves and in any required control joints.
4) Resurface repaired areas to match existing.
5) Install fence or guard at drop off.
6) Install safety signage.

PGCC 6-21-23

29 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 7 : Upper Pier Deck Railing
Appendix A Photo 20: Upper Pier Railing
Appendix A Photo 21: Upper Pier Deck Railing
PGCC 6-21-23

30 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 22: Upper Pier Deck Railing
Appendix A Photo 23: Upper Pier Deck Railing Under Historical Wave Impact During Pier Construction (Photo Taken Prior to Construction of Lower Pier Deck Portion) PGCC 6-21-23

31 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Four prior generations of railing are evident. Extensive concrete cracking has resulted from expansion of railing posts because of corrosion and from wave impact forces on the railings from ocean wave overtopping of the pier.
2) Railings are essential for pier user safety, and thus must be in a challenging corrosive environment that is subject to wave inundation and impact. 3) Railing will not protect users from wave uprush, impact, or overtopping. 3) Lack of fence or guard at drop off into ocean. Safety Hazard.

Solutions:
1) Install new corrosion resistant railings. Found them in the new concrete beam located at the edges of and the tip of the pier with an integrated sleeved foundation for the new railings. 2) Use marine elastomeric filler in upper portion of new railing foundation sleeves and in any required control joints.
3) Resurface repaired areas to match existing.
4) Close pier during extreme ocean wave conditions. Install safety signage.

PGCC 6-21-23

32 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 8 : Seaward End of Lovers Point Pier
Appendix A Photo 24: Lovers Point Pier Showing Damage at Seaward End PGCC 6-21-23

33 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 25: Lovers Point Pier Showing Closer View of Damage at Seaward End Appendix A Photo 26: Showing 2021 Damage at Seaward End of Pier PGCC 6-21-23

34 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 27: Showing 2021 Damage at Seaward End of Pier In January 2021, at the tip of the pier, several large pieces of concrete fascia were stripped off the structure by wave impact. The ends of two decayed wooden beams are visible where voids were created where the concrete fascia was stripped off the pier. The reinforcing ties that anchored the fascia to the concrete deeper within the pier structure are rusted away. This created a situation where the fascia was unattached or barely attached to the main bulk of the pier structure. The concrete fascia of the pier has been historically patched based on different fascia thicknesses and concrete types that are now visible.

PGCC 6-21-23

35 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Extensive cracking of concrete wall and facing. Large cracking appears to be caused by a combination of reinforcing bar and reinforcing tie failure and spalling. Under the stress of wave impact forces.
2) Exposed edges of facing and adjacent walls are delaminating and becoming detached from the core of the pier.
3) The core of the pier is exposed and subject to ongoing damage. 4) Foundation of existing fence at tip of pier is damaged, so it does not adequately guard the drop off into the ocean there. Safety Hazard.

Solutions:
1) Maintain existing additional safety fencing to prevent pedestrian access to the seaward 10 feet of the pier.
2) Close pier during extreme ocean wave conditions. Install safety signage. 3) Install new corrosion resistant railings. Found them in the new concrete beam located at the edges of and the tip of the pier with an integrated sleeved foundation for the new railings. 4) Demolish "Failing Area" of shotcrete facing shown in Photograph 26 (above). 5) Install new marine shotcrete fascia tied into core of existing pier and into new beam around upper pier perimeter. Take precautions to prevent concrete debris from any required demolition and any uncured fresh or hardened concrete from entering the ocean. 6) Resurface repaired areas to match existing adjacent surfaces.

PGCC 6-21-23

36 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 9 : Small Building Located on Pier Approach
Appendix A Photo 28: Small Building Located on Pier Approach Appendix A Photo 29: Door into Interior of Small Building Located on Pier Approach PGCC 6-21-23

37 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Problems:
1) Spalling from corrosion of reinforcing bar.
2) Cracking of concrete.
3) Structural distress from concrete reinforcing failure.

Solutions:
1) Inspect interior room.
2) Structural Engineer to evaluate stability of roof and walls of building. This evaluation may conclude a complete rebuild of the building is preferred or resurfacing of existing concrete and infilling of the room with concrete control density fill or may find that removal of the building is most cost effective.
3) Remove corroded concrete, replace damaged reinforcing, sandblast surface, reform damaged area and pour new concrete.
4) Resurface repaired areas to match existing.

PGCC 6-21-23

38 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 10 : Steps to Beach from Pier Approach
At the landward end of the approach to the pier, a set of steps with arcuate treads descends to the beach sand at the main Lovers Point Beach.

Appendix A Photo 30: Steps to Beach
Problems:
1) The noses of the treads have eroded and become broken off, resulting in irregular surfaces on the steps, which are partly covered in sand. This creates a slip and fall hazard. 2) No handrail exists.

Solutions:
1) Reconstruct steps that are code compliant.
2) Install code compliant handrail(s) for pedestrians to use.

PGCC 6-21-23

39 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Location 11 : Rip-rap Revetment
The rip-rap revetment downcoast of the pier is in good condition. It absorbs wave energy, decreases pier flooding which increases the time the pier is usable, and buttresses and supports the concrete pier structure. It is shown below.

Appendix A Photo 31: Rip-rap Revetment Downcoast of Pier PGCC 6-21-23

40 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE  WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076  (831) 722-4175  FAX (831) 722-3202 Appendix A Photo 32: Closer View of Rip-rap Revetment Downcoast of Pier Problems:
1) The toe of the revetment is at a much steeper gradient than the remainder and quarrystone at the toe will become unstable in the future.

Solutions:
1) Ultimately the revetment may need to be armored with a layer of larger quarry stones or precast concrete elements (e. g. dolos, tetra pods, tribars etc.) PGCC 6-21-23

APPENDIX B

WAVE RUNUP AND FORCE ANALYSIS
PGCC 6-21-23

0.60 CONCRETE
PAD

CONCRETE
PAD

ASPHALT WALK

SAND BEACH

MEAN HIGH WATER
ELEVATION: 4.63'

ROCK/CONCRETE WALL MONTEREY BAY
40 0 30
1 10

RIPRAP/SAND

MEAN HIGH WATER
ELEVATION: 4.63'

LIGHT UTILITY

VAULT RAILING

EXISTING BUILDING WHARF HYDRANT
20 1 00
0 90
0 80
0 50

RIP RAP

RIPRAP/SAND
15 10
5 0 70
0 60
0 EXISTING CRACK IN
CONCRETE, TYPICAL 14
2 3
6 7
8 9
11 4 25
MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION: 4.63'

ROCK/CONCRETE WALL

HV TARGET

24.30 HV TARGET

14.03 25.38

25.98 25.00

25.70 26.03

26.48 27.32 EM

26.13 27.06

27.13 27.75

27.35 29.40 26.95
40-CYP
28-CYP

25.98 27.03

27.06 27.52

26.69 25.10

24.60 24.12

24.79 24.83

24.07 24.17

23.85 23.38

24.54 24.70

24.36 24.42

24.43 24.25

23.83 23.74

23.76 24.76

25.41 26.87 26.31

27.30 27.78

27.08 26.03

24.82 24.78

25.30 25.30

25.68 26.22

26.37 26.03

26.29 26.58

26.99 26.91

26.45 26.51

26.52 26.14

26.18 26.14

26.88 26.20

25.75 26.50

10.18 9.77

9.14 8.15

7.95 8.16

8.54 8.97

8.40 9.18

9.70 1.34

4.14 5.97

6.01 5.71

4.68 3.41

1.80 0.26

18.42 18.59

7.11 8.44

11.51 11.53

8.56 8.43

12.03 11.94

1.15 1.97

1.52 2.89

2.71 3.62

2.42 4.64

3.80 4.15
-0.11

1.29 3.19

0.51 1.53

1.85 2.31

2.91 3.18

4.39 5.32

11.94 12.10

7.85 0.72

0.64 1.45

1.19 -0.23

4.22 3.24

5.09 2.33

5.81 6.63

4.02 4.05

4.21 5.29

5.81 5.43

6.88 4.18

3.35 4.26

0.22 0.49 0.74

3.19 23.33 9.86 8.29

8.07 5.76 2.48

18.17 0.44

0.37 0.79

HV TARGET

21.84 HV TARGET

7.88 HV TARGET

14.10 24.74

24.62 24.42

24.28 24.48 23.23

21.08 19.10

13.92 15.35

15.33 15.25

18.54 20.61

22.34 23.53

23.90 23.92

13.81 13.87

18.09 20.26

20.80 22.03

22.18 28-PALM

23.65 24.87

23.62 20-CYP

23.72 22.45

22.32 18.47

22.96 21.48

21.12 20.63

12.81 12.60

12.86 15.91

18.27 16.28

15.61 15.41

19.28 21.22

21.54 21.52 20.20
24-CYP

23.69 23.82

24.22 20.39

20.59 22.37

22.89 23.53

21.46 19.49

20.05 19.89

23.10 23.74

23.88 24.01

24.43 14.59 8.17 4.65 1.73 0.80

18.52 15.48

16.74 5.48

4.91 3.23

13.82 1.60

14.19 14.26

14.25 FF

13.82 13.59

14.21 14.17

8.10 8.21

1.54 12.26

12.49 12.61

13.55 14.14

14.15 12.47

12.33 12.29

12.27 12.25 FF

7.99 7.97

7.97 7.87

7.15 7.93

8.07 8.15

8.19 8.21

8.26 7.22

1.56 1.52

5.54 1.62

1.45 1.97

0.38 0.88

1.20 1.29

3.26 3.15

1.04 1.82

9.45 12.54

10.57 13.27

14.31 11.73

14.91 17.40

17.94 15.53

12.94 13.94

8.23 16.51

14.34 13.93 15.30 15.24

14.22 14.82

16.57 14.02

14.38 14.41

14.23 14.22

12.10 12.38

13.61 4.12

4.09 3.66

16.22 12.26

11.07 11.60

9.42 10.05

1.78 0.81

0.66 1.65

9.91 8.19

4.70 7.35

8.78 4.71

4.97 3.99

8.18 9.75

10.81 10.06

8.54 8.63

5.66 8.63

11.01 11.83

8.13 7.81

11.86 8.88

13.82 13.57

11.03 6.12

6.27 3.85

6.97 5.32

9.70 9.96

9.80 STA 0 + 29.06 SECTION A
0 0
0 20
0 10
0 -10
0 -20
0 -30
0 -40
0 -50
0 -60
0 -70
0 -80
0 -90
0 -100
0 -110
0 -120
0 -130
0 -140
0 -150
0 -160
0 -170
0 -180
0 -190
0 -200
0 -210
0 -220
0 -230
0 -240
0 -250
0 -260
0 -270
0 -280
0 -290
0 -300
0 -310
0 -320
0 -330
0 -340
0 -350
0 -360
0 -370
30 -70 -50 -30 -10 10

ELEVATION
FEET
-370 -350 -330 -310 -290 -270 -250 -230 -210 -190 -170 -150 -130 -110 -90 -10
0 10
-20
-30 WAVE RUNUP CROSS SECTION
1 ON 9.7 FOR 101 FEET
1 ON 35.7 FOR 270.5 FEET
30 -10
0 10
20 40 60 80 100
MHTL
EXISTING RAILING 25 CROSS SECTION A

RIP RAP

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL APPROXIMATE WATER LINE 5-23-2022

EXISTING CONCRETE

PIER SURFACE
TOP OF WALL EL 14.5
EXISTING RAILING 1 ON 9.7 FOR 38.5 FEET
BASE OF EXPOSED WALL EL 8 RIP RAP GRANITE BEDROCK WITH SEAWEED GROWTH 1 ON 4.25 FOR 19.8 FEET 1 ON 1.4 FOR 5.6 FEET

RIP RAP
110
GRANITE BEDROCK WITH SEAWEED GROWTH GRANITE BEDROCK WITH SEAWEED GROWTH -20 -30
SWL = 11.7 NAVD88, YEAR 2072 SWL = 9.9 NAVD88, YEAR 2022 SWAN WAVES. USER SPECIFED WRUP GENERATED MAX

BREAKING WAVES
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 1
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP & PLAN VIEW WITH WAVE RUNUP SECTION LOVERS POINT PIER BAND-AID REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 7-21-2022
OF 1 SHEETS

AS SHOWN

PRELIMINARY DRAFT
FEET
0 20 40 60 80
PGCC 6-21-23

WAVE RUNUP AND FORCE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY

LOVERS POINT PIER
Date: October 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Notes:
1) Analysis perfmored on WRUPTM wave runp software program 1984 using the composite slope method 2) All elevations reported in NAVD88
3) Analysis performed for existing and final wall configuration Description of Terms:

Case No. Case number from WRUP print outs
SWL (ft.) Still water elevation
H o' (ft.) Unrefracted deepwater wave height
T (sec.) Wave period
H b (ft.) Breaking wave height
d b (ft.) Breaking water depth
R (ft.) Wave Runup. The vertical height above the still water level to which water from an incident wave will run up the face of a structure.

TWL (ft.) Total Water Level in NAVD88 = Wave Runup (R) + Still Water Level elevation (SWL) in NAVD88 SECTION A, METHOD: CALCULATE MAXIMUM BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT GIVEN WAVE PERIOD.

Year SWL (ft.) Ho' (ft.) T (sec.) H b
(ft.) d b (ft.) R (ft.) TWL (ft. NAVD88)
2022 9.9 9.3 16 15.5 16.2 27.6 37.5
2072 11.7 10.9 16 17.3 18.2 32.8 44.5
SECTION A, METHOD: USER SPECIFIED DEEP WATER WAVE HEGIHT. WAVE HEIGHTS FROM SWAN ANALYIS.

Year SWL (ft.) Ho' (ft.) T (sec.) H b
(ft.) d b (ft.) R (ft.) TWL (ft. NAVD88)

9.9 4.8 16 11.0 7.5 14.1 24

9.9 6.2 16 13.2 9.1 19.1 29

9.9 7.0 16 14.4 9.9 22.2 32.1

11.7 4.8 16 11.0 8.3 13.5 25.2

11.7 6.2 16 13.2 9.1 20.1 31.8

11.7 7.0 16 14.4 9.9 23.2 34.9

SECTION A, SUMMARY OF WAVE FORCE ANALYSIS
Year Method SWL (ft.) Loading
Miniken SPM 9.9 992 psf
Broken Waves SPM 9.9 518 psf
Breaking Wave FEMA 9.9 961 lb/ft
Miniken SPM 11.7 1661 psf
Broken Waves SPM 11.7 582 psf
Breaking Wave FEMA 11.7 3645 lb/ft
2022
2072
2072
2022
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

WAVE FORCE RESULTS SUMMARY

LOVERS POINT PIER
Date: October 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Broken Waves - Wall Seaward of Stillwater Line
Notes:
1) Analysis is based on Chapter 7.III.4.a/b pg. 7-192 of Shore Protection Manual Volume II by Army Corps of Engineers (1984) 2) T, Hb, and db taken from WRUP
Description of Terms:

P m (psf) Maximum dynamic pressure
H b (ft.) Breaking wave height
d s (ft.) Depth at the toe of the structure
d b (ft.) Depth of breaking wave
D (ft.) Depth one wavelength in front of the wall
T (sec.) Wave period
L d (ft.) Wave length in water of depth D
R m (lb/ft) Force represented by the area under the dynamic pressure distribution M m (ft-lb / ft) Moment resulting from the dynamic component of pressure R s (lb/ft) Hydrostatic component of breaking wave on a wall M s (ft-lb / ft) Hydrostatic moment
R t (lb/ft) Total breaking wave force on wall per unit wall length M t (ft-lb / ft) Total moment about the toe
w (pcf) Unit weight of water = 64 pcf
SECTION A, SWL = 9.9
TOW (ft.) 14.5
Toe Wall (ft.) 8
SWL (ft.) 9.9
d s (ft.) 1.9
g (ft./s 2
) 32.2
T (sec.) H b (ft.) d b (ft.) h c (ft) P m (psf) R m (lb/ft) M m (ft-lb / ft) R s (lb/ft) M s (ft-lb / ft) R t (lb/ft) M t (ft-lb / ft)
16* 15.5 16.2 12.1 518.4 6,267 49,795 6,263 29,207 12,530 79,002 16** 14.4 9.9 11.2 316.8 3,558 26,744 5,518 24,156 9,077 50,900 * WRUP Calculated maximm breaking waves height given wave period. ** User specified deepwater wave height. Wave hegiht from SWAN Analysis.

SECTION A, SWL = 11.7
TOW (ft.) 14.5
Toe Wall (ft.) 8
SWL (ft.) 11.7 `
d s (ft.) 3.7
g (ft./s 2) 32.2
T (sec.) H b (ft.) d b (ft.) h c (ft) P m (psf) R m (lb/ft) M m (ft-lb / ft) R s (lb/ft) M s (ft-lb / ft) R t (lb/ft) M t (ft-lb / ft)
16* 17.3 18.2 13.5 582.4 7,859 67,956 7,583 38,912 15,442 106,868 16** 14.4 9.9 11.2 316.8 3,558 26,744 5,518 24,156 9,077 50,900 * WRUP Calculated maximm breaking waves height given wave period. ** User specified deepwater wave height. Wave hegiht from SWAN Analysis.

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

WAVE FORCE RESULTS SUMMARY

LOVERS POINT PIER
Date: October 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Section A Breaking Wave Forces on Vertical Wall Notes (SWL = 11.7 ft NAVD88):

Notes:
1) Analysis is based on Miniken Method (1955, 1963). Miniken method can give wave forces that are extremeley high (15 to 18 times those calculated for non breaking waves) 2) From Chapter 7 pg. 7-99 of Shore Protection Manual Volume II by Army Corps of Engineers (1984) Description of Terms:

P m (psf) Maximum dynamic pressure
H b (ft.) Breaking wave height
d s (ft.) Depth at the toe of the structure
d b (ft.) Depth of breaking wave
D (ft.) Depth one wavelength in front of the wall
T (sec.) Wave period
L d (ft.) Wave length in water of depth D
R m (lb/ft) Force represented by the area under the dynamic pressure distribution M m (ft-lb / ft) Moment resulting from the dynamic component of pressure R s (lb/ft) Hydrostatic component of breaking wave on a wall M s
(ft-lb / ft) Hydrostatic moment
R t (lb/ft) Total breaking wave force on wall per unit wall length M t
(ft-lb / ft) Total moment about the toe
w (pcf) Unit weight of water = 64 pcf
PGCC 6-21-23

SECTION A, SWL = 11.7, ds/D = 0.23, T = 16 sec
H b (ft.) P m (psf) R m (lb/ft) M m (ft-lb / ft) R s (lb/ft) M s (ft-lb / ft) R t (lb/ft) M t (ft-lb / ft) 2 192 128 474 707 1107 835 1581
4 384 512 1894 1040 1975 1552 3870
6 576 1152 4262 1436 3208 2588 7471
8 768 2048 7578 1897 4870 3945 12447
10 960 3200 11840 2422 7024 5622 18864
11 1056 3872 14326 2708 8306 6580 22632
12 1152 4608 17050 3011 9735 7619 26785
14 1344 6272 23206 3664 13067 9936 36274
16 1536 8192 30310 4380 17084 12572 47394

17.3 1660.8 9577 35436 4881 20092 14458 55528
18 1728 10368 38362 5161 21849 15529 60211
20 1920 12800 47360 6006 27428 18806 74788
PGCC 6-21-23

WAVE FORCE RESULTS SUMMARY

LOVERS POINT PIER
Date: October 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Section A Breaking Wave Forces on Vertical Wall Notes (SWL = 9.9 ft NAVD88):

Notes:
1) Analysis is based on Miniken Method (1955, 1963). Miniken method can give wave forces that are extremeley high (15 to 18 times those calculated for non breaki 2) From Chapter 7 pg. 7-99 of Shore Protection Manual Volume II by Army Corps of Engineers (1984) Description of Terms:

P m (psf) Maximum dynamic pressure
H b (ft.) Breaking wave height
d s (ft.) Depth at the toe of the structure
d b (ft.) Depth of breaking wave
D (ft.) Depth one wavelength in front of the wall
T (sec.) Wave period
L d (ft.) Wave length in water of depth D
R m (lb/ft) Force represented by the area under the dynamic pressure distribution M m (ft-lb / ft) Moment resulting from the dynamic component of pressure R s (lb/ft) Hydrostatic component of breaking wave on a wall M s
(ft-lb / ft) Hydrostatic moment
R t (lb/ft) Total breaking wave force on wall per unit wall length M t
(ft-lb / ft) Total moment about the toe
w (pcf) Unit weight of water = 64 pcf
PGCC 6-21-23

SECTION A, SWL = 9.9, ds/D = 0.23, T = 16 sec
H b (ft.) P m (psf) R m (lb/ft) M m (ft-lb / ft) R s (lb/ft) M s (ft-lb / ft) R t (lb/ft) M t (ft-lb / ft) 2 128 85 162 269 260 354 422
4 256 341 649 487 633 828 1281
6 384 768 1459 768 1255 1536 2714
8 512 1365 2594 1114 2191 2479 4785
10 640 2133 4053 1524 3504 3657 7557
11 704 2581 4905 1752 4322 4334 9227
12 768 3072 5837 1997 5259 5069 11096
14 896 4181 7945 2535 7520 6716 15464

15.5 992 5125 9738 2980 9585 8105 19324
16 1024 5461 10377 3136 10350 8598 20726
18 1152 6912 13133 3802 13814 10714 26946
20 1280 8533 16213 4532 17975 13065 34188
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

WAVE FORCE RESULTS SUMMARY FROM FEMA CCM VII

LOVERS POINT PIER
Date: October 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Breaking Wave Loads on Vertical Walls FEMA Coastal Construction Manual Chapter 8.5.8.2 Note: Below calcs are based on case 1 (enclosed dry space behind wall see equation 8.6 below) SECTION A, CP = 1.6, WRUP CALCULATED MAXIMUM BREAKING WAVE GIVEN WAVE PERIOD SWL (ft.) TOW (ft.) h (ft.) d s (ft.) f brkw (lb/ft)

11.7 14.5 6.5 3.7 3645

9.9 14.5 6.5 1.9 961
SECTION A, CP = 1.6, USER SPECIFIED WAVE HEIGHT, WAVE HEIGHT FROM SWAN ANALYSIS SWL (ft.) TOW (ft.) h (ft.) d s (ft.) f brkw (lb/ft)

11.7 14.5 6.5 3.7 3645

9.9 14.5 6.5 1.9 961
PGCC 6-21-23

APPENDIX C

RIP RAP REVETMENT EVALUATION AND BOULDER SIZING
PGCC 6-21-23

9.1 8.1

13.3 9.9

24.7 19.6

7.7 20.4

20.8 10.4 8.4 9.7 10.1 7.9

10.3 12.7 14.7

19.8 13.2 4.7

12.6 6.0

10.7 12.6

9.7 8.8

16.5 13.2

24.7 14.3

8.8 10.6 9.5

11.2 10.3

8.9 14.8

10.5 14.5

9.5 10.5

8.2 15.2

11.1 17.2

8.0 17.2

17.3 8.6

7.1 17.3

32.7 13.9 31.8

7.2 10.1

7.7 8.3 6.5

11.2 10.0 6.4

16.3 15.7

18.0 13.7

24.7 15.5

24.0 10.7

15.3 16.4

11.8 9.4

18.0 12.9 10.1

8.6 14.3

14.2 12.3

8.1 10.7

20.5 27.0

19.9 15.5

10.0 13.0

24.8 15.9

11.6 10.8

7.9 27.6

15.0 12.1

15.5 10.2 15.9 11.5

12.3 17.7

6.3 9.0

13.5 15.2

10.5 13.5 14.8

10.6 16.6 14.2

11.2 25.3

12.3 10.8

9.2 9.7 7.4

16.1 8.6

10.1 1 2 4 3 5 6
15 14 7 8 9
10 11
13 12
16 17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42 44 45
46 43
47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54
60 55 56
57 65
66 63
67 68
58 59
69 71
70 72
73 74
76 75
82 83 84
85 77
78 79
80 81
87 89
86 88 90
91 92
94 96 98
93 95 97
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
111
107
108
109
110
112 113
114
117
117
118
119
115 116
120
121
122
64 61
62 9.4
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 HKA CALC SHEET - NOT PART OF PLAN SET LOVERS POINT PIER BAND-AID REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 10-20-2022

AS SHOWN

HKA CALC SHEET - NOT PART OF PLAN SET

AREAS IN SQ FT
1 inch = 5 ft.

FEET 0 5 10 15 D:\FOXX\Lovers Point Pier\2022-10-20 LOVERS POINT PIER REPAIR.dwg, 10/20/2022 4:18:04 PM PGCC 6-21-23

Lovers Point Rip Rap sample October 20, 2022
122 Boulders Measured Adjacent to
Boulder # Top View Area Ft2
Top View Radius2 Ft2
Top View Radius Ft *Volume Ft3Tons
68 32.7 10.4 3.2 105.5 8.7
67 31.8 10.1 3.2 101.2 8.3
38 27.6 8.8 3.0 81.8 6.7
118 27.0 8.6 2.9 79.2 6.5
91 25.3 8.1 2.8 71.8 5.9
59 24.8 7.9 2.8 69.7 5.7
16 24.7 7.9 2.8 69.3 5.7
104 24.7 7.9 2.8 69.3 5.7
99 24.0 7.6 2.8 66.3 5.5
9 20.8 6.6 2.6 53.5 4.4
1 20.4 6.5 2.5 52.0 4.3
120 19.9 6.3 2.5 50.1 4.1
28 19.8 6.3 2.5 49.7 4.1
6 19.6 6.2 2.5 49.0 4.0
97 18.0 5.7 2.4 43.1 3.6
117 18.0 5.7 2.4 43.1 3.6
76 17.7 5.6 2.4 42.0 3.5
57 17.3 5.5 2.3 40.6 3.3
58 17.3 5.5 2.3 40.6 3.3
27 17.2 5.5 2.3 40.2 3.3
30 17.2 5.5 2.3 40.2 3.3
96 16.6 5.3 2.3 38.2 3.1
18 16.5 5.3 2.3 37.8 3.1
102 16.4 5.2 2.3 37.5 3.1
93 16.3 5.2 2.3 37.1 3.1
69 16.1 5.1 2.3 36.4 3.0
33 15.9 5.1 2.2 35.8 3.0
80 15.9 5.1 2.2 35.8 3.0
95 15.7 5.0 2.2 35.1 2.9
81 15.5 4.9 2.2 34.4 2.8
105 15.5 4.9 2.2 34.4 2.8
121 15.5 4.9 2.2 34.4 2.8
101 15.3 4.9 2.2 33.8 2.8
54 15.2 4.8 2.2 33.4 2.8
72 15.2 4.8 2.2 33.4 2.8
39 15.0 4.8 2.2 32.8 2.7
48 14.8 4.7 2.2 32.1 2.7
85 14.8 4.7 2.2 32.1 2.7
32 14.7 4.7 2.2 31.8 2.6
53 14.5 4.6 2.1 31.2 2.6
41 14.3 4.6 2.1 30.5 2.5
113 14.3 4.6 2.1 30.5 2.5
PGCC 6-21-23

98 14.2 4.5 2.1 30.2 2.5
109 14.2 4.5 2.1 30.2 2.5
61 13.9 4.4 2.1 29.2 2.4
103 13.7 4.4 2.1 28.6 2.4
70 13.5 4.3 2.1 28.0 2.3
75 13.5 4.3 2.1 28.0 2.3 3 13.3 4.2 2.1 27.4 2.3
17 13.2 4.2 2.0 27.1 2.2
26 13.2 4.2 2.0 27.1 2.2
122 13.0 4.1 2.0 26.4 2.2
115 12.9 4.1 2.0 26.1 2.2
31 12.7 4.0 2.0 25.5 2.1
21 12.6 4.0 2.0 25.2 2.1
24 12.6 4.0 2.0 25.2 2.1
77 12.3 3.9 2.0 24.3 2.0
90 12.3 3.9 2.0 24.3 2.0
108 12.3 3.9 2.0 24.3 2.0
40 12.1 3.9 2.0 23.7 2.0
106 11.8 3.8 1.9 22.9 1.9
35 11.6 3.7 1.9 22.3 1.8
78 11.5 3.7 1.9 22.0 1.8
46 11.2 3.6 1.9 21.1 1.7
82 11.2 3.6 1.9 21.1 1.7
92 11.2 3.6 1.9 21.1 1.7
60 11.1 3.5 1.9 20.9 1.7
34 10.8 3.4 1.9 20.0 1.7
89 10.8 3.4 1.9 20.0 1.7
22 10.7 3.4 1.8 19.7 1.6
100 10.7 3.4 1.8 19.7 1.6
112 10.7 3.4 1.8 19.7 1.6
44 10.6 3.4 1.8 19.5 1.6
94 10.6 3.4 1.8 19.5 1.6
50 10.5 3.3 1.8 19.2 1.6
52 10.5 3.3 1.8 19.2 1.6
74 10.5 3.3 1.8 19.2 1.6
15 10.4 3.3 1.8 18.9 1.6
11 10.3 3.3 1.8 18.7 1.5
43 10.3 3.3 1.8 18.7 1.5
79 10.2 3.2 1.8 18.4 1.5
12 10.1 3.2 1.8 18.1 1.5
63 10.1 3.2 1.8 18.1 1.5
110 10.1 3.2 1.8 18.1 1.5
116 10.1 3.2 1.8 18.1 1.5
83 10.0 3.2 1.8 17.8 1.5
119 10.0 3.2 1.8 17.8 1.5 5 9.9 3.2 1.8 17.6 1.4
13 9.7 3.1 1.8 17.0 1.4
PGCC 6-21-23

20 9.7 3.1 1.8 17.0 1.4
86 9.7 3.1 1.8 17.0 1.4
45 9.5 3.0 1.7 16.5 1.4
49 9.5 3.0 1.7 16.5 1.4
7 9.4 3.0 1.7 16.3 1.3
111 9.4 3.0 1.7 16.3 1.3
87 9.2 2.9 1.7 15.7 1.3
2 9.1 2.9 1.7 15.5 1.3
71 9.0 2.9 1.7 15.2 1.3
47 8.9 2.8 1.7 15.0 1.2
19 8.8 2.8 1.7 14.7 1.2
42 8.8 2.8 1.7 14.7 1.2
37 8.6 2.7 1.7 14.2 1.2
55 8.6 2.7 1.7 14.2 1.2
114 8.6 2.7 1.7 14.2 1.2
14 8.4 2.7 1.6 13.7 1.1
64 8.3 2.6 1.6 13.5 1.1
51 8.2 2.6 1.6 13.2 1.1
4 8.1 2.6 1.6 13.0 1.1
107 8.1 2.6 1.6 13.0 1.1
29 8.0 2.5 1.6 12.8 1.1
10 7.9 2.5 1.6 12.5 1.0
36 7.9 2.5 1.6 12.5 1.0
8 7.7 2.5 1.6 12.1 1.0
66 7.7 2.5 1.6 12.1 1.0
88 7.4 2.4 1.5 11.4 0.9
62 7.2 2.3 1.5 10.9 0.9
56 7.1 2.3 1.5 10.7 0.9
65 6.5 2.1 1.4 9.3 0.8
84 6.4 2.0 1.4 9.1 0.8
73 6.3 2.0 1.4 8.9 0.7
23 6.0 1.9 1.4 8.3 0.7
25 4.7 1.5 1.2 5.7 0.5
ASSUMPTION (field check suggests this is reasonable)
* Volume (ft3)= plan view surface area of boulder (ft2)times radius (ft) boulders are typically placed lying flat; thinnest dimension is vertical PGCC 6-21-23

CATEGORIES
Weight Class # of Boulders in SampleWeight of Class % By Weight of Total Sample 8+ Tons 2 17 6%
5 to 7 Tons 7 42 14%
4 to 5 Tons 5 21 7%
3 to 4 Tons 14 46 16%
2 to 3 Tons 32 80 27%
1 to 2 Tons 54 81 28%

0.5 to 1 Ton 8 6 2%
Total 122 293
By Weight the Mean Boulder Size is about 2.75 Tons
By Number of Boulders Mean Boulder Size is about 2 Tons Note than many boulders less than 0.5 Tons were NOT included in sample PGCC 6-21-23

Rip-Rap Sizing and Stability
Lovers Point Pier Repair
Date: Oct 2022
Job #: M11897
By: AK
Stability of Rubble Structures
Notes:
1) Analysis is based on Chapter 7.III.7 pg. 7-202 of Shore Protection Manual Volume II by Army Corps of Engineers (1984) 2) H taken from WRUP
Description of Terms:

W (lb) Weight in pounds of an individual armor unit in the primary cover w r (pcf) Unite weight of armor units (limestone & granite =~165pcf) H (ft.) Design wave height (from WRUP analysis)
S r Specific weight of armor unit, relative to the water at the site (wr / ww) w w (pcf) Unit weight of water (seawater = 64 pcf)
θ ( ˚) Angle of structure slope measured from horizontal in degrees K D Stability coefficient (table 7-8)
SECTION A, Scour Profile
w r (pcf) 165.0
S r 2.6
w w (pcf) 64.0
θ ( ˚) 6.0 ~10H:1V
K D 2.0
Section A, Method: Calculate Maximum Breaking Wave Height Given Wave Period Reduced wave height to account for waves braking outside and rolling in as whitewater Year SWL (ft) H (ft.) W (lb) W (ton) Year SWL (ft) H (ft.) W (lb) W (ton) 2022 9.9 15.5 8,216 4.1 2022 9.9 8.463 1,337 0.7
2072 11.7 17.3 11,423 5.7 2072 11.7 9.4458 1,859 0.9
Section A, Method: User Specifeid Deep Water Wave Height: Wave Heights From Swan Analysis Year SWL (ft) H (ft.) W (lb) W (ton)
2022 9.9 14.4 6,588 3.3
2072 11.7 14.4 6,588 3.3
PGCC 6-21-23

APPENDIX D

COASTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FIELD EXPLORATION

FOR UPPER AND LOWER DECK
PGCC 6-21-23

DRILLED HOLE 1 (DH-1) “UPPER DECK” 4-5-2022
PGCC 6-21-23

DRILLED HOLE 2 “UPPER DECK” (DH-2) 4-5-2022
PGCC 6-21-23

DRILLED HOLE 2 “UPPER DECK” (DH-2) 4-5-2022
PGCC 6-21-23

COMPARING FINDINGS WITH OBSERVATIONS OF EXTERIOR
PGCC 6-21-23

DRILLED HOLE 3 (DH-3) “LOWER DECK” 4-6-2022
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE HOLE (CH-2) UPPER DECK 4-7-2022
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE HOLE 3 (CH-3) LOWER DECK
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-2-3 UPPER DECK DEPTH = 40 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-2-4 UPPER DECK DEPTH = 67.5 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-2-5 UPPER DECK DEPTH = 40 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-2-6 UPPER DECK DEPTH = 75 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-2-7 UPPER DECK DEPTH 89 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-2 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 22 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-3 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 38 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-4 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 45 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-5 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 52 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-7 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 59 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

CORE C-3-8 LOWER DECK DEPTH = 83 INCHES
PGCC 6-21-23

Clients Project No:

Design Strength (psi):

1.44 1.63

2.87 3110
2 Average Compressive Strength (psi): 3110
Cross-Sectional Area (in2):

Length (in):

Total Load (lbs.):

Compressive Strength (psi):

Type of Break (C39 - Fig. 2):

Date Tested:

Time Tested:

Age at Test (days):

Ave. Diameter (in.):
5,070
10:01 AM
5 Sulfur Caps - C617
Test Date : 4/11/2022
Cored By:

Sample C-21: Diameter is 1.44", Uncut length is 4.01", no cutes grooves or voids in core.

N/A
4/12/2022
Cored Date: Notes:

Sampling Method Used:

Sample No:

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Lovers Point Pier
Project No: 16129.26
Project:

ASTM C39
Sample Set No: C-21 Sample Type: 1" cylinder
HKA
Cylinder Capping Method Used:
4/7/2022
Date:

Client:

ASTM C42
HKA
Sample Location/Notes Lovers Point Pier - C21
April 11, 2022
11897.1 Material Type:

Chris Johnson - Supervising Engineer
Pacific Crest Engineering.

Tested By - Brian Apolinario Date Issued
Results relate only to the items inspected or tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the proper written approval of The above samples and tests performed are in compliance with the approved project plans and specifications.

Worksheet: W22 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 1120
4/12/22
PGCC 6-21-23

Clients Project No:

Design Strength (psi):

ASTM C42
Chris Johnson - Supervising Engineer
Pacific Crest Engineering.

Tested By - Brian Apolinario Date Issued
Results relate only to the items inspected or tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the proper written approval of The above samples and tests performed are in compliance with the approved project plans and specifications.

HKA
Sample Location/Notes Lovers Point Pier - C21
Sample No: 1
Cylinder Capping Method Used:
4/7/2022
Sampling Method Used:

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Lovers Point Pier
Project No: 16129.26
Project:

ASTM C39
Date: April 11, 2022
Client:

Sample Set No: C-22 Sample Type: 1" cylinder
HKA
11897.1 Material Type: Masonry
Time Tested: 10:01 AM
5 Sulfur Caps - C617
Test Date : 4/12/2022
Cored By:

Sample C-22: Diameter is 1.45", Uncut Length is 6.34",sample has some large aggregate within it. No voids.

N/A
4/12/2022
Cored Date: Notes:

Date Tested:

Age at Test (days):

Ave. Diameter (in.):
7370
2 Average Compressive Strength (psi): 7370
Cross-Sectional Area (in2):

Length (in):

Total Load (lbs.):

Compressive Strength (psi):

Type of Break (C39 - Fig. 2):
12,170

1.45 1.65

2.82 Worksheet: W22 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 1120
4/14/22
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

Clients Project No:

Design Strength (psi):

ASTM C42
Chris Johnson - Supervising Engineer
Pacific Crest Engineering.

Tested By - Brian Apolinario Date Issued
Results relate only to the items inspected or tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the proper written approval of The above samples and tests performed are in compliance with the approved project plans and specifications.

HKA
Sample Location/Notes Lovers Point Pier - C21
Sample No: 1
Cylinder Capping Method Used:
4/7/2022
Sampling Method Used:

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Lovers Point Pier
Project No: 16129.26
Project:

ASTM C39
Date: April 11, 2022
Client:

Sample Set No: C-31 Sample Type: 1" cylinder
HKA
11897.1 Material Type: Masonry
Time Tested: 10:01 AM
5 Sulfur Caps - C617
Test Date : 4/13/2022
Cored By:

Sample C-31: Diameter 1.37", Uncut Length 9.54", 3/8" - 1/2" Agg. Present. Sample to be cut 2.74" from top
N/A
4/13/2022
Cored Date: Notes:

Date Tested:

Age at Test (days):

Ave. Diameter (in.):
3190
3 Average Compressive Strength (psi): 3190
Cross-Sectional Area (in2):

Length (in):

Total Load (lbs.):

Compressive Strength (psi):

Type of Break (C39 - Fig. 2):
4,700

1.37 1.47

2.82 Worksheet: W22 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 1120
4/14/22
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

Clients Project No:

Design Strength (psi):

ASTM C42
Chris Johnson - Supervising Engineer
Pacific Crest Engineering.

Tested By - Brian Apolinario Date Issued
Results relate only to the items inspected or tested. This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the proper written approval of The above samples and tests performed are in compliance with the approved project plans and specifications.

HKA
Sample Location/Notes Lovers Point Pier - C21
Sample No: 1
Cylinder Capping Method Used:
4/7/2022
Sampling Method Used:

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
Lovers Point Pier
Project No: 16129.26
Project:

ASTM C39
Date: April 11, 2022
Client:

Sample Set No: C-36 Sample Type: 1" cylinder
HKA
11897.1 Material Type: Masonry
Time Tested: 10:01 AM
5 Sulfur Caps - C617
Test Date : 4/13/2022
Cored By:

Sample C-36: Diameter 1.44", Uncut Length 7.31", Various 3/8" - 3/4" Agg. Present. Some Voids.

N/A
4/13/2022
Cored Date: Notes:

Date Tested:

Age at Test (days):

Ave. Diameter (in.):
4370
3 Average Compressive Strength (psi): 4370
Cross-Sectional Area (in2):

Length (in):

Total Load (lbs.):

Compressive Strength (psi):

Type of Break (C39 - Fig. 2):
7,120

1.44 1.63

2.83 Worksheet: W22 Page 1 of 1 Rev. 1120
4/14/22
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC.

GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL ENGINEERS
116 E. LAKE AVENUE, WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
(831) 722-4175
SCALE:

DATE:

DRAWN BY:

REVISED: JOB NO. SHEET NO.

OCT 2022
M11897
Pacific Grove
Monterey County
Lovers Point Pier
SCALE: DRAWN BY: AK
FIGURE NO. D-1

DRILLING SITE PLAN
NTS
NOTES:

1. BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE EARTH 2020
KEY: = CORING LOCATION
C-#
C-2 C-3
= DRILLING LOCATION
D-#
D-1
D-2
D-3
PGCC 6-21-23

PRIMARY DIVISIONS SECONDARY DIVISIONS GWGP GMGCSWSPSMSCML CL OL MHCHOHPt GROUP SYMBOL GRAVEL SAND SILTS AND CLAYES SILTS AND CLAYES HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSCLEAN GRAVELS (LESS THAN 5% FINES) GRAVEL WITH FINES CLEAN SANDS (LESS THAN 5% FINES) SANDS WITH FINES MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE MORE THAN HALF OF COARSE FRACTION IS SMALLER THAN NO. 4 SIEVE WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES. POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES. WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES. POORLY GRADED SANDS OR GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES. SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTYRES, NON-PLASTIC FINES. CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTYRES, PLASTIC FINES. INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY. SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS. ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY. INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS. INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS. ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS. PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS. FINES. LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%

MORE THAN HALF OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE

COARSE GRADED SOILS FINE GRADED SOILS

MORE THAN HALF OF

MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE GRAIN SIZES CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/4" 2" 12" SAND GRAVEL SILTS AND CLAYS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY SAMPLING METHOD WATER SANDS AND GRAVELS BLOWS PER FOOT* SILTS AND CLAYS STRENGTH (TSF)** BLOWS PER FOOT* STANDARD PENETRATION TEST MODIFIED CALIFORNIA PITCHER BARREL SHELBY TUBE BULK VERY LOOSE LOOSE MEDIUM DENSE DENSE VERY DENSE 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 OVER 50 VERY SOFT SOFT FIRM STIFF VERY STIFF HARD 0 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 4 OVER 4 0 - 2 2 - 4 4 - 8 8 - 16 16 - 32 OVER 32 BSPMCT FINAL INITIAL WATER LEVEL DESIGNATION FIGURE NO. D-2KEY TO LOGS NTS HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 E. LAKE AVENUE, WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 SCALE: DATE: DRAWN BY: REVISED: JOB NO. SHEET NO. OCT 2022 M11897 Pacific Grove Monterey County Lovers Point Pier SCALE: DRAWN BY: AK PGCC 6-21-23

Concrete 1/4" to 1/2" angular gravels, good
matrix with hard cementitious material,
solid concrete
Same as above but weaker
Concrete with granite gabion or riprap, poor
matrix, weak or punky cementitious material
Hard granite riprap or bedrock
Bottom of borehole at 7.5 feet.

C-2-1
C-2-2
C-2-3
C-2-4
C-2-5
C-2-6
C-2-7
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 14 ft

LOGGED BY TA
DRILLING METHOD Coring
HOLE SIZE 2"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HKA GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MC
DATE STARTED 4/7/22 COMPLETED 4/7/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- DEPTH (ft)

0.0 2.5

5.0 7.5 GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID SAND LIMIT % GRAVEL % DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COHESION (psf)

ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SIEVE
ANALYSIS Phi USCS (deg) PLASTICITY FINES INDEX
%
CORING NUMBER C-2
Figure No.: 3
PROJECT NAME Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair
PROJECT LOCATION Pacific Grove, California
CLIENT City of Pacific Grove
PROJECT NUMBER M11897
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US.GDT - 10/28/22 16:30 - H:\PROJECTS\11000S\11897 FOLDER, LOVERS POINT PIER FAILURE, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT\APPENDIX\11897 BLOGS FINAL 10-28-22, FIG 3 - 7.GPJ Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
(psi)
3,110
7,370
PGCC 6-21-23

Concrete, 1/4" to 1/2" angular gravel fair, matrix,
some voids, fair to poor cementitious material,
"solid concrete"
Same as above but weaker
(GP) Granite riprap or gabion size rock
Concrete, 1/4" to 3/4" angular gravel, fair matrix,
fair cementitious material
Concrete bonded to gabion or riprap size
granite, good concrete matrix, 1/4" to 3/4"
gravel, hard cementitious material
Concrete, 1/4" to 3/4" angular gravel, fair matrix,
some voids, fair cementitious material
Cement bonded to granite gabion or riprap, fair
matrix, fair cementitious material
Native granite bedrock formation
Bottom of borehole at 7.5 feet.

C-3-1
C-3-2
C-3-3
C-3-4
C-3-5
C-3-6
C-3-7
C-3-8
GP
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 8 ft

LOGGED BY TA
DRILLING METHOD Coring
HOLE SIZE 2"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HKA GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MC
DATE STARTED 4/7/22 COMPLETED 4/7/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- DEPTH (ft)

0.0 2.5

5.0 7.5 GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID SAND LIMIT % GRAVEL % DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COHESION (psf)

ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SIEVE
ANALYSIS Phi USCS (deg) PLASTICITY FINES INDEX
%
CORING NUMBER C-3
Figure No.: 4
PROJECT NAME Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair
PROJECT LOCATION Pacific Grove, California
CLIENT City of Pacific Grove
PROJECT NUMBER M11897
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US.GDT - 10/28/22 16:30 - H:\PROJECTS\11000S\11897 FOLDER, LOVERS POINT PIER FAILURE, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT\APPENDIX\11897 BLOGS FINAL 10-28-22, FIG 3 - 7.GPJ Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
(psi)
3,190
4,370
PGCC 6-21-23

Grey, cement, sand, gravel, fine to coarse grain,
quartz "concrete"
(SW) White sand, fine to coarse grain, quartz,
granite pieces, "granite and concrete," easier
drilling
Concrete and grainte rubble, harder drilling
Hard granite riprap or bedrock
Bottom of borehole at 9.5 feet.

SW
NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 14 ft

LOGGED BY TA
DRILLING METHOD Percussion Drilling
HOLE SIZE 2"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Sunstone Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MC
DATE STARTED 4/5/22 COMPLETED 4/5/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- DEPTH (ft)

0.0 2.5

5.0 7.5 GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID SAND LIMIT % GRAVEL % DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COHESION (psf)

ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SIEVE
ANALYSIS Phi USCS (deg) PLASTICITY FINES INDEX
%
BORING NUMBER DH-1
Figure No.: 5
PROJECT NAME Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair
PROJECT LOCATION Pacific Grove, California
CLIENT City of Pacific Grove
PROJECT NUMBER M11897
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US.GDT - 10/28/22 16:30 - H:\PROJECTS\11000S\11897 FOLDER, LOVERS POINT PIER FAILURE, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT\APPENDIX\11897 BLOGS FINAL 10-28-22, FIG 3 - 7.GPJ Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
(psi)
PGCC 6-21-23

Grey sand, gravel, cement, quartz " concrete"
White and grey sand, fine to coarse grain,
quartz and gravel, concrete and granite riprap or
gabion rock, easier drilling
Grey white sand, quartz, fine to coarse grain,
"concrete and riprap or gabion rock," harder
drilling
Grey coarse sand, quartz, feldspar, mica, native
granite bedrock or riprap
Bottom of borehole at 11.0 feet.

NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 14 ft

LOGGED BY TA
DRILLING METHOD Percussion Drilling
HOLE SIZE 2"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Sunstone Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MC
DATE STARTED 4/5/22 COMPLETED 4/5/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- DEPTH (ft)

0.0 2.5

5.0 7.5

10.0 GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID SAND LIMIT % GRAVEL % DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COHESION (psf)

ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SIEVE
ANALYSIS Phi USCS (deg) PLASTICITY FINES INDEX
%
BORING NUMBER DH-2
Figure No.: 6
PROJECT NAME Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair
PROJECT LOCATION Pacific Grove, California
CLIENT City of Pacific Grove
PROJECT NUMBER M11897
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US.GDT - 10/28/22 16:30 - H:\PROJECTS\11000S\11897 FOLDER, LOVERS POINT PIER FAILURE, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT\APPENDIX\11897 BLOGS FINAL 10-28-22, FIG 3 - 7.GPJ Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
(psi)
PGCC 6-21-23

Grey sand, cement and gravel, fine to coarse
grain "concrete"
Grey white sand, gravel, quartz cement, fine to
coarse grain, concrete and granite riprap or
gabion rock, easier drilling
Grey white sand, gravel, quartz cement, fine to
coarse grain, concrete and granite riprap or
gabion rock, harder drilling
Grey and white and black, sand fine to coarse
grain, quartz, mica, feldspar, native granite
bedrock
Bottom of borehole at 9.0 feet.

NOTES
GROUND ELEVATION 8 ft

LOGGED BY TA
DRILLING METHOD Percussion Drilling
HOLE SIZE 2"
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Sunstone Construction GROUND WATER LEVELS:

CHECKED BY MC
DATE STARTED 4/6/22 COMPLETED 4/6/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- AT END OF DRILLING --- AFTER DRILLING --- DEPTH (ft)

0.0 2.5

5.0 7.5 GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE NUMBER PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID SAND LIMIT % GRAVEL % DRY UNIT WT. (pcf) MOISTURE CONTENT (%) COHESION (psf)

ATTERBERG
LIMITS
SIEVE
ANALYSIS Phi USCS (deg) PLASTICITY FINES INDEX
%
BORING NUMBER DH-3
Figure No.: 7
PROJECT NAME Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair
PROJECT LOCATION Pacific Grove, California
CLIENT City of Pacific Grove
PROJECT NUMBER M11897
GEOTECH BH COLUMNS - GINT STD US.GDT - 10/28/22 16:30 - H:\PROJECTS\11000S\11897 FOLDER, LOVERS POINT PIER FAILURE, CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT\APPENDIX\11897 BLOGS FINAL 10-28-22, FIG 3 - 7.GPJ Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc.

COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
(psi)
PGCC 6-21-23

SHEET INDEX

LOVERS POINT PIER BAND-AID REPAIR

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK
APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 A.P.N. : 006-155-099 3.06 Acres

PROJECT
SITE:

SITE
Moses Cuprill, C.E. 78904
HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
116 East Lake
Watsonville, CA 95076
(831)722-4175

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Public Works Department
Attn: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/
Deputy City Manager
2100 Sunset Drive
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(831) 648-5722
Plan Preparers:

Prepared for:

OWNER: CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

LOVERS POINT PARK
OCEAN VIEW BLVD.,
PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950

VICINITY MAP

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

NO SCALE
OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM 2021
OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH FROM 2021 SHOWING PIER DAMAGE NO SCALE

NO SCALE

PROJECT DATA
SHEET 1 - TITLE SHEET
SHEET 2 - OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOS
SHEET 3 - STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN
SHEET 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
SHEET 5 - REPAIR SITE PLAN AND SECTIONS
SHEET 6 - EXISTING CROSS SECTIONS A & B
SHEET 7 - EXISTING CROSS SECTIONS C & D
SHEET 8 - FASCIA PATCH AND SLAB DETAILS
SHEET 9 - FOOTING AND SLAB DETAILS
SHEET 10 - GUARD AND HANDRAIL DETAILS
SHEET 11 - STRUCTURAL NOTES
SHEET 12 - GENERAL NOTES
SHEET 13 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
& BEST MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
SHEET 14 - SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES
SITE
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 1
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN
11897 TITLE SHEET LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 2
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN
OBLIQUE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FROM MAY 23, 2022 SHOWING AREA NEEDING REPAIR

NO SCALE
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

ACCESS
ROUTE

WORKING
AREA

CONSTRUCTION

STAGING AREA
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MW
Sheet 3
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 STAGING AND ACCESS PLAN 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS
NTS
11897

CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE AND STAGING AREA
GOOGLE IMAGE DATE 2/23/2021
NTS LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

LT WALK

SAND BEACH

MEAN HIGH WATER
ELEVATION: 4.63'
(E) ROCK/CONCRETE WALL

MONTEREY BAY
(E) RIPRAP/SAND MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION: 4.63'
LIGHT

UTILITY
VAULT
(E) BUILDING
(E) RIP RAP

RIPRAP/SAND
(E) CRACK IN

CONCRETE,

TYPICAL
MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION: 4.63'
(E) ROCK/CONCRETE WALL
(E) CONTROL JOINT
(E) JOINT (E) JOINT (E) JOINT (E) JOINT
(E) WHARF

HYDRANT
(E) RAILING
(E) RAILING
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 4
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 EXISTING CONDITIONS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN
FEET 0 10 20 30 40
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FOOT

ELEVATIONS FOR THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON A RTK GPS TIE TO NGS BENCHMARK PID:GU-3229 (DESIGNATION 941 3450 TIDAL 3).

ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE IN THE NORTH AMERICAN
VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88).

BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON REALTIME KINEMATIC (RTK) GPS READINGS ON TWO CONTROL POINTS SET ONSITE FOR THIS PROJECT.

BACKGROUND IMAGERY IS AN ORTHORECTIFIED PHOTO MOSAIC.

PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND GROUND SURVEY PERFORMED ON MAY 23, 2022.

SURVEY CREATED BY ALPHA LAND SURVEYS, INC. ON JUNE 13 2022. 11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

LT WALK

SAND BEACH

MEAN HIGH WATER
ELEVATION: 4.63'
(E) ROCK/CONCRETE WALL

MONTEREY BAY
(E) RIPRAP/SAND

MEAN HIGH WATER
ELEVATION: 4.63'
LIGHT

UTILITY
VAULT
(E) BUILDING
(E) RIP RAP

RIPRAP/SAND
0 20
0 10
0 40
0 30
0 70
0 60
0 50
0 1 00
0 90
0 80
1 0 0
10 0 20
0 10
0 40
0 30
0 70
0 60
0 50
0 1 00
0 90
0 80
1 0 0
10 (E) CRACK IN

CONCRETE,

TYPICAL
MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION: 4.63'
(E) ROCK/CONCRETE WALL
(E) CONTROL JOINT

LIMIT OF

NEW SLAB
(E) JOINT (E) JOINT
(E) JOINT
(E) JOINT
INSTALL NEW 10"

REINFORCED

SHOTCRETE FASCIA

ON WALL FACE
INSTALL NEW 6"

REINFORCED

SHOTCRETE FASCIA

ON WALL FACE
(E) WHARF

HYDRANT

REFORM AND RESURFACE

EXISTING STAIRS TO BE
CODE COMPLIANT. INSTALL

STAINLESS STEEL HANDRAIL
AND GUARD.
(E) RAILING
(E) RAILING

INSTALL
NEW 6"

REINFORCED

SHOTCRETE

FASCIA ON

WALL FACE

INFILL DOORWAY IN

STAIRWELL WALL &

REPAIR & RESURFACE

WALLS TO MATCH

ADJACENT EXISTING
WALLS
3'
3'
INSTALL NEW 6"

REINFORCED

SHOTCRETE FASCIA

ON WALL FACE

INSTALL NEW GUARD

INSTALL NEW GUARD
(N) HANDRAIL LIMITS

REMOVE AND
REPLACE WITH 6"
FASCIA
6" FASCIA
LIMITS

REPLACE UPPER DAMAGED

CONCRETE SECTION WITH

NEW CONCRETE FOOTING

AND INSTALL NEW GUARD
END 6" FASCIA /
BEGIN 10" FASCIA
0SECTION B

SECTION D
40 0 30
1 10
0 40
30 60
0 50

SECTION C
1 00
0 80
0 20
0 0
50 0 70
0 60
0 0
.94

1.06 0 SECTION A
0 0
20 0
10 END 10"

FASCIA /
BEGIN 6"
FASCIA
(N) CONTROL

JOINT, TYPICAL
BEGIN 6"
FASCIA
BEGIN 6"
FASCIA
BEGIN 6"
FASCIA
(N) HANDRAIL LIMITS
(N) HANDRAIL LIMITS
1 2% CROSS SLOPE
1 2% CROSS SLOPE
1% CROSS SLOPE
(N) HANDRAIL LIMITS

BEGIN (N) GUARD

END (N) GUARD

END (N) GUARD
(N) GUARD LIMITS, PER DETAIL 2 ON
SHEET 10

END (N) GUARD
BEGIN (N) GUARD 3'
3'

2.5'
6"
3'

3.5'

4.5'
INSTALL NEW 7"

MONOLITHIC

TOPPING SLAB OVER

EXISTING SLAB
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7” DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7” THICK MONOLITHIC SLAB
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 5
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 REPAIR SITE PLAN AND SECTIONS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN
FEET
0 10 20 30 40
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 APPROXIMATE HANDRAIL AND GUARD QUANTITIES:
(N) HANDRAIL = 45± LINEAR FEET
(N) GUARD = 257± LINEAR FEET
100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

-10
0 10
20 -10
0 10
20 0
20 40 60 80 100

ELEVATION
FEET
MHTL
MHTL

EXISTING RAILING
25 25

CROSS SECTION A
APPROXIMATE WATER LINE 5-23-2022 RIP RAP

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING VERTICAL

CONCRETE WALL

APPROXIMATE WATER
LINE 5-23-2022

EXISTING CONCRETE

PIER SURFACE

NEW FASCIA

3.5'
3'

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7” DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7” THICK SLAB

2.5'

EXISTING RAILING

SPIRAL REBAR CAGE
2'
10"
6" ID
6" ID
NEW 2'X2.5' GUARD FOOTING
NEW 3'X3.5' GUARD FOOTING
12" 18"
SEE DETAIL C2
ON SHEET 9

SEE DETAIL B
ON SHEET 9
NEW 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375")
ROUND ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEELTOP & BOTTOM
WITH 3/8" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING. SEE SHEET 8
10"

APPROXIMATE

TOPOGRAPHY

RIP RAP

RIP RAP
(EXTENT

UNKNOWN)

RIP RAP
(EXTENT

UNKNOWN)
?
?

EXISTING PIER

STRUCTURE
-10
0 10
20 0
10 20
0 20 40 60

ELEVATION
FEET
MHTL

CROSS SECTION B
25 APPROXIMATE WATER LINE 5-23-2022

NEW FASCIA

3.5'

SPIRAL REBAR CAGE
6" ID

EXISTING CONCRETE

PIER SURFACE
3' 10"

EXISTING VERTICAL

CONCRETE WALL

EXISTING RAILING
25 18"
NEW 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375")
ROUND ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEELTOP & BOTTOM
WITH 3/8" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING. SEE SHEET 8

SEE DETAIL B
ON SHEET 9
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7” DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7” THICK SLAB

EXISTING PIER

STRUCTURE
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 6
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 EXISTING CROSS SECTIONS A & B 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS
FEET
0 4 8 12 AS SHOWN
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

-10
0 10
20 -10
0 10
20 0
20 40 60 80 100

SAND/RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP
MHTL

LOWER CONCRETE DECK
MHTL
25 25

CROSS SECTION C
APPROX. WATER LINE
5-23-2022 APPROXIMATE WATER
LINE 5-23-2022

EXISTING CURB

EXISTING RAILING

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL

NEW FASCIA
4'

SPIRAL REBAR CAGE
6" ID

EXISTING RAILING

EXISING CONCRETE

PIER SURFACE

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7" DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7" THICK SLAB

2.5'
2'
6"
6" ID

EXISTING VERTICAL

CONCRETE WALL
3' 6"

RIP-RAP
18" 12"

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)

2.5'
2'
6"
6" ID

EXISTING VERTICAL

CONCRETE WALL
12"
ADD NEW 7" THICK TOPPING SLAB
SEE DETAIL C1
ON SHEET 9
SEE DETAIL C2 ON SHEET 9
NEW 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375") ROUND ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEELTOP & BOTTOM WITH 3/8" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING.

SEE SHEET 8

SAND / RIP

RAP (EXTENT

UNKNOWN)

RIP RAP
(EXTENT

UNKNOWN)
?
?
-10
0 10
20 -10
0 10
20 0
20 40 60 80 100

ELEVATION
FEET

SAND/RIP-RAP

RIP-RAP
MHTL
25 25

CROSS SECTION D

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL

APPROXIMATE WATER
LINE 5-23-2022
SAND

LOWER CONCRETE DECK

EXISTING CURB

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)

2.5'
2'
6"
6" ID
12"

EXISTING RAILING

EXISTING CONCRETE

PIER SURFACE

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)

2.5'
2'
6"
6" ID

EXISTING VERTICAL
12" CONCRETE WALL
ADD NEW 7" THICK TOPPING SLAB

EXISTING VERTICAL

CONCRETE WALL
NEW 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375")
ROUND ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEELTOP & BOTTOM
WITH 3/8" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING. SEE SHEET 8
SEE DETAIL C2
ON SHEET 9
SEE DETAIL C2 ON SHEET 9

RIP RAP
(EXTENT

UNKNOWN)
?

RIP RAP
(EXTENT

UNKNOWN)
Date
Scale
Job

AS SHOWN
Drawn
MF
Sheet 7
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 EXISTING CROSS SECTIONS C & D 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS
FEET
0 4 8 12
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 8
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 FASCIA PATCH AND SLAB DETAILS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN

CROSS SECTION DETAIL OF NEW

VERTICAL WALL FASCIA - TYPICAL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
FASCIA 6" TO 10" THICK AS

INDICATED ON PLAN & CROSS
SECTIONS. TEXTURE TO MATCH
ADJACENT SURFACES.
#3 CHROMX 4100 "L" BARS ON
24"X24" GRID - TYPICAL
18"
1/2" DRILLED HOLE WITH EPOXY
12"

EXISTING

CONCRETE

AND GROUTED

ROCK MIXTURE
#3 CHROMX 4100 BARS ON 12" OC

BOTH WAYS - TYPICAL
#3 CHROMX 4100 "L" BARS
ON 24"X24" GRID - TYPICAL
18"
1/2" DRILLED HOLE WITH EPOXY
12"

EXISTING CONCRETE

AND GROUTED ROCK

MIXTURE
#4 CHROMX 4100 BARS ON 12" OC

BOTH WAYS - TYPICAL

CONCRETE PIER SURFACE

EXISTING CONCRETE SLAB

THICKNESS VARIES

CROSS SECTION DETAIL OF NEW

CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB ON LOWER

PIER - TYPICAL

NEW CONCRETE TOPPING

SLAB OVERLAYING LOWER

PIER SURFACE (WHERE

INDICATED ON PLAN)
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 #3 CHROMX 4100 "L" BARS ON 24"X24" GRID - TYPICAL
18"
1/2" DRILLED HOLE WITH EPOXY
12"
#4 CHROMX 4100 BARS ON 12" OC

BOTH WAYS - TYPICAL

NEW CONCRETE PIER SURFACE

CROSS SECTION DETAIL OF NEW

CONCRETE SLAB ON UPPER PIER -

TYPICAL

NEW CONCRETE SLAB (DEMOLISH
UPPER 7" OF EXISTING UPPER PIER

SLAB AND REPLACE WITH NEW SLAB

WHERE INDICATED ON PLAN)

EXISTING CONCRETE

AND GROUTED ROCK

MIXTURE
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
EPOXY
1" X 1/4" SAWCUT FILLED WITH

SEMI-RIGID EPOXY RESIN FILLER
#4 CHROMX 4100 REBAR
(E) SLAB (N) SLAB
(E) SLAB AND (N) SLAB

CONNECTION DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
2'
1" X 1/4" SAWCUT FILLED WITH
SEMI-RIGID EPOXY RESIN FILLER.

CONTROL JOINT LOCATION AS
INDICATED ON PLAN.
(N) MONOLITHIC SLAB,

TO BE BROOM FINISHED
7"
7"
(N) SLAB CONTROL JOINT
DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
DETAIL 1
DETAIL 2
DETAIL 4
DETAIL 3
DETAIL 5
(N) MONOLITHIC SLAB,

TO BE BROOM FINISHED
100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 9
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 FOOTING AND SLAB DETAILS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
NEW 10" THICK FASCIA

3.5'
NEW 42" HIGH GUARD
6" ID 316 SS SLEEVE
3'
10"

DETAIL B
4'

2.5'
2'
6"
3' 6"
DETAIL C1
DETAIL C2

EXISTING CONCRETE PIER SURFACE
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7" DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7" THICK SLAB

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL
NEW 3'H x 3.5'W GUARD FOOTING.

DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO ACCOMMODATE NEW FOOTING.

FILL SLEEVE WITH MARINE GRADE

ELASTOMERIC FILLER
NEW 6" THICK FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)
NEW 42" HIGH GUARD

EXISTING CONCRETE PIER SURFACE
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7" DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7" THICK SLAB

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL
NEW 2'H x 2.5'W GUARD FOOTING.

DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE
TO ACCOMMODATE NEW FOOTING.

FILL SLEEVE WITH MARINE GRADE

ELASTOMERIC FILLER
NEW 42" HIGH GUARD

EXISTING CONCRETE PIER SURFACE
DEMOLISH EXISTING SLAB 7" DEEP AND
POUR NEW 7" THICK SLAB
NEW 6" THICK FASCIA
NEW 12" DIA 4" PITCH SPIRAL #3 CHROMX
4100 REBAR CAGE

EXISTING VERTICAL CONCRETE WALL
NEW 3'H x 4'W GUARD FOOTING.

DEMOLISH EXISTING STRUCTURE TO
ACCOMMODATE NEW FOOTING.

FILL SLEEVE WITH MARINE GRADE
ELASTOMERIC FILLER 18"
12"
18"
6" ID 316 SS SLEEVE
6" ID 316 SS SLEEVE
NOTES:

1. CONTINUOUSLY FILLET WELD TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL SLEEVE TO UPPER AND LOWER

SLEEVE COLLARS

2. VERTICAL GUARD POSTS TO BE CONTINUOUS AND PENETRATE BOTH SLEEVE COLLARS.

3. GUARD POSTS AND CAP TO BE 2" SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375") ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL

4. GUARD TO HAVE VERTICAL 1
2" BARS AT 4 INCH OC BETWEEN RAILING CAP AND LOWER
HORIZONTAL RAILING BAR 3.5 INCHES ABOVE CONCRETE SURFACE.

5. SAW CUT REMOVED AREAS OF DEMOLISHED CONCRETE TO PREVENT CRACKING OF ADJACENT CONCRETE WORK TO REMAIN IN PLACE.

6. DOWEL NEW FOOTINGS TO EXISTING GROUTED ROCK AND CONCRETE AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION.
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR
@ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS WITH
STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS
NEW 12" DIA 4" PITCH SPIRAL #3 CHROMX
4100 REBAR CAGE
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR
@ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS WITH
STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS
NEW 12" DIA 4" PITCH SPIRAL #3 CHROMX
4100 REBAR CAGE
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR
@ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS WITH
STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 939503.5' 2'-3"

2.4'

1.9'

3.5'

3.5'
100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

8'-5 1
4 " (TEN 11-1/4" TREADS)
EXISTING LANDING EL 1.52
4"
EL 1.5
ADD NEW 7" THICK TOPPING SLAB
EL 8.47

EXISTING LOWER
CONCRETE DECK EL 7.87

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)

1.5" ROUND SCHEDULE 80 (OD 1.90")
ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS

STEEL HANDRAIL ON INSIDE
STAIRWAY WALL @ 34" MIN TO 38"

MAX ABOVE NOSE OF TREADS
INSTALL 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2"
SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375") ROUND ASTM
A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL TOP &
BOTTOM WITH 1/2" DIA VERTICAL SS
DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING ALONG EDGE

OF DECK

NEW FASCIA (TEXTURED TO

MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE)
ADD NEW 7" THICK TOPPING SLAB
6'- 4 5/16"
(ELEVEN 6-15/16" RISERS)
EXISTING LOWER CONCRETE DECK EL 7.87
NEW LANDING EL 2.12
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR @ 12" O. C.

BOTH WAYS WITH STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING
BAR @ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS
WITH STANDARD HOOKS @
ENDS
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR
@ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS WITH
STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS 4"
111
4 " 6
15 16" R=1
2 "
NEW SLAB EL 8.47
3'- 0"

LANDING
NEW LOWER DECK SURFACE EL 8.75
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR
@ 12" O. C. BOTH WAYS WITH
STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS
(E) UPPER CONCRETE DECK EL14.19
7'-6" (EIGHT 11-1/4" TREADS)
EXISTING LOWER CONCRETE DECK EL 8.17
ADD NEW 7" THICK TOPPING SLAB
4'- 11-7/16"
(NINE 6-5/8" RISERS)
#4 CHROMX 4100 REINFORCING BAR @ 12" O. C.

BOTH WAYS WITH STANDARD HOOKS @ ENDS

1.5" ROUND SCHEDULE 80 (OD 1.90")
ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS

STEEL HANDRAIL ON INSIDE
STAIRWAY WALL @ 34" MIN TO 38"

MAX ABOVE NOSE OF TREADS
INSTALL 3'- 6" HIGH GUARD WITH 2"
SCHEDULE 80 (OD 2.375") ROUND ASTM
A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL TOP &
BOTTOM WITH 1/2" DIA VERTICAL SS
DOWELS @ 3- 3/4" SPACING ALONG EDGE

OF DECK
111
4 "
1" TYP

NON-SLIP GROOVES

TO BE TOOLED INTO

WET CONCRETE BY
FINISHER 1/4"W x
1/2" D (TYP FOR ALL
STEPS)
6 5
8 "

AS SHOWN
Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 10
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 GUARD AND HANDRAIL DETAILS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

STAIRS TO WATER FROM LOWER DECK
SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0"

STAIRS FROM UPPER PIER SURFACE TO LOWER DECK
SCALE: 1/2"=1'-0"
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950

REQUIRED SAFETY

SIGNANGE AT UPPER AND

LOWER PIERS
NEW 42" HIGH GUARD ABOVE

WALKING SURFACE AND NOSE

OF TREADS
6" ID 316 SS SLEEVE
3'
18"
NEW 1.5" ROUND SCHEDULE 80 (OD 1.90")
ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL
HANDRAIL @ NOSE OF STAIR TREADS
FILL SCHEDULE 40 - 1/4-INCH WALL
THICKNESS TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL

SLEEVE WITH MARINE GRADE

ELASTOMERIC FILLER
SCHEDULE 40 - 1/4-INCH WALL THICKNESS
TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL SLEEVE

CONTINUOUS FILLET WELD

CONTINUOUS FILLET WELD

GUARD AND HANDRAIL DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
NEW GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE
80 (OD 2.375") ROUND ASTM
A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS

STEEL TOP AND BOTTOM WITH
1/2" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS
@ 3-3/4" SPACING

WALKING SURFACE
NEW 42" HIGH GUARD ABOVE

WALKING SURFACE AND NOSE

OF TREADS
2'
NEW 1.5" ROUND SCHEDULE 80 (OD 1.90")
ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL
HANDRAIL @ NOSE OF STAIR TREADS
8"L X 3/8"DIA TYPE 316

CONCRETE SCREWS

WALKING SURFACE
6"
NEW 6" THICK FASCIA

LOWER PIER GUARD AND HANDRAIL

DETAIL AT LOWER STAIRS
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"

3.5'
NEW GUARD WITH 2" SCHEDULE
80 (OD 2.375") ROUND ASTM
A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS

STEEL TOP AND BOTTOM WITH
1/2" DIA VERTICAL SS DOWELS
@ 3-3/4" SPACING
4"
8"
8"
4"
DETAIL 1
DETAIL 2
100% PLANS
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 11
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 STRUCTURAL NOTES 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

AS SHOWN

STANDARD HOOKS & DEVELOPMENT LENGTH FOR TENSION BARS
90 DEGREE HOOK
BAR MIN. INSIDE EXTENSION

STRAIGHT
SIZE DIAMETER (IN.) ℓext (IN.)
NO. 3
NO. 4
NO. 5
NO. 6
NO. 7
NO. 8

2.25 3.0

3.75 4.5

5.25 6.0

4.5 6.0

7.5 9.0

10.5 12.0
180 DEGREE HOOK
BAR MIN. INSIDE EXTENSION

STRAIGHT
SIZE DIAMETER (IN.) ℓext (IN.)
NO. 3
NO. 4
NO. 5
NO. 6
NO. 7
NO. 8

2.25 3.0

3.75 4.5

5.25 6.0

2.5 2.5

2.5 3.0

3.5 4.0
ℓdh

BARS IN TENSION
BAR
SIZE
NO. 4
NO. 5
NO. 6
NO. 7

6.5 8.0

9.5 11.0
(IN.)

DEVELOPMENT LENGTH & SPLICE (BARS IN TENSION)
(fy=100 ksi & f'c=4.5 ksi)
(CLEAR SPACING OF BARS OR WIRES BEING DEVELOPED OR LAP SPLICED AT LEAST 2db AND CLEAR COVER AT LEAST db) (fy=80 ksi & f'c=4.5 ksi) ℓd
BAR
SIZE
NO. 4
NO. 5
NO. 6
NO. 7
31 39
47 68
(IN.)

CLASS B SPLICE
ℓd (IN.)

40.5 51.0

61.1 88.5
NO. 3 6.0

5. REBAR EMBEDMENT & EPOXY BONDING
A. HOLE DIMENSIONS
THE ANNULAR SPACE BETWEEN THE REBAR AND HOLE SHOULD BE AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE, YET STILL PROVIDE EASE OF PLACEMENT.

THE MINIMUM DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT SHALL BE AT LEAST 8 INCHES. LOWER STRENGTH MATERIALS IN THE EMBEDMENT ZONE WILL REQUIRE 12 TO 18 INCHES.

B. SURFACE PREPARATION
REBAR MUST BE CLEAN, DRY AND DEGREASED.

DRY DRILLING: VACUUM OR BLOW OUT HOLE USING OIL-FREE COMPRESSED AIR WET DRILLING: WASH OUT HOLE WITH CLEAN WATER TO REMOVE RESIDUE OF DRILLING SLURRY. REMOVE STANDING WATER AND ALLOW THE HOLE(S) TO DRY.

CLEAN OUT DRILLED HOLE WITH A WIRE BRUSH TO ENSURE ALL DEBRIS IS REMOVED, C. MIXING
FOR EASE OF MIXING AND HANDLING, EPOXY SHOULD BE CONDITIONED TO 70°F. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MIXING.

D. INSTALLATION
FOR HORIZONTAL SURFACES, TWO METHODS ARE ACCEPTABLE:
1- POUR EPOXY GROUT INTO THE HOLE AND INSERT REBAR AND WORK IT UP AND DOWN. LIGHTLY TAP TO ENSURE COMPLETE EMBEDMENT. 2- INSERT REBAR INTO DRILLED HOLE AND POUR EPOXY GROUT AROUND IT. USE TEMPLATE OR WEDGES IF NECESSARY TO HOLD IN POSITION.

FOR VERTICAL AND OVERHEAD SURFACES:

PLACE EPOXY GROUT INTO DRILLED HOLE WITH HAND OR POWER OPERATED BULK CAULKING GUN WITH LARGE DIAMETER TIP AND POLYETHYLENE EXTENSION TUB. INSERT BOLT, DOWEL OR REBAR AND WORK BACK AND FORTH TO ENSURE COMPLETE EMBEDMENT. POSITION IN PLACE WITH TEMPLATE OR WEDGES IF NECESSARY.

E. CURING
THE CURE TIME IS DEPENDENT UPON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE SUBSTRATE. TO ACCELERATE CURE (VERIFY THIS WITH MANUFACTURER), PRE-HEAT BOLTS TO APPROXIMATELY 150°F (66°C) AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION AND MAINTAIN ARTIFICIAL HEAT ON BOLT AND SURROUNDING AREA.

PLACEMENT AND COVERAGE: ENSURE THAT REINFORCEMENT AND EMBEDDED ITEMS IN STRUCTURAL WALLS ARE NOT DISTURBING PLACEMENT OF SHOTCRETE/CONCRETE. MINIMUM SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE COVERAGE TO REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE AS NOTED IN THE DRAWINGS. ARTIFICIAL ROCK FACING SHALL BE 6" TO 10" THICK COLORED & TEXTURED SHOTCRETE.

TESTING: CONCRETE MATERIALS SHALL BE TESTED BY A TESTING AGENCY APPROVED BY THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AND HKA. ONLY TESTED CONCRETE SHALL BE USED. SPECIAL INSPECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR CONCRETE PER CHAPTER 17 OF THE C.B.C. MAINTAIN COMPLETE RECORDS OF PLACED CONCRETE INCLUDING:

DATE, LOCATION, QUANTITY AND TEST SAMPLES TAKEN. TAKE FOUR TEST CYLINDERS OR ONE TEST PANEL FOR SHOTCRETE PER 50 CU YARDS OF CONCRETE PLACED EACH DAY, BUT NO LESS THAN FOUR TEST CYLINDERS OR ONE SHOTCRETE PANEL FOR EACH DAY THAT CONCRETE IS PLACED.

PROTECTION: PROTECT SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE FROM PREMATURE DRYING, MAINTAINING MINIMAL WATER

LOSS AT A RELATIVELY CONSTANT TEMPERATURE FOR A PERIOD NECESSARY FOR HYDRATION OF CEMENT AND HARDENING OF SHOTCRETE/CONCRETE. IN CASE OF EXPOSURE TO SALT WATER, WASH THE SURFACE TO RECEIVE SHOTCRETE/CONCRETE WITH POTABLE WATER JUST PRIOR TO SHOTCRETE/CONCRETE PLACEMENT.

SHOTCRETE OR GUNITE: PROPORTIONING, MIXING AND PLACEMENT OF SHOTCRETE OR GUNITE SHALL COMPLY WITH ACI 506R. LAPPING OF THE REINFORCING SPLICES ARE PERMITTED IF THE SPACING AT THE REINFORCING IS OPEN ENOUGH TO ALLOW CLEAR, UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO BOTH SIDES OF THE REINFORCING. IF NOT, THE LAPPED BARS SHOULD BE SPACED AT LEAST THREE TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE LARGEST BAR AT THE SPLICE.

CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 5 YEARS EXPERIENCE WITH PROVEN PERFORMANCE RECORD ON SIMILAR TYPE OF PROJECTS, USING THE SAME QUALIFIED NOZZLEMAN, CREW AND EQUIPMENT.

BACKFORMING SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF OVEREXCAVATION OR VOIDS. BACKFORMING COSTS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT PRICE. DAMPEN SURFACES TO RECEIVE SHOTCRETE. ALL REBOUND SHOTCRETE MATERIAL SHALL BE COLLECTED AND DISPOSED OF. NO SHOTCRETE MATERIAL SHALL BE DUMPED INTO OCEAN WATER OR LEFT ON BEACH. COVER SHOTCRETE WALL AREAS FOR CURING AND PROTECTION. LAYERS OF SHOTCRETE AND CONSTRUCTION JOINTS TO RECEIVE SHOTCRETE SHALL BE DAMPENED BY POTABLE WATER. IN

CASE OF EXPOSURE TO SALTWATER, WASH UNDERLYING SHOTCRETE SURFACE TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL SHOTCRETE WITH POTABLE WATER JUST PRIOR TO ADDITIONAL SHOTCRETE PLACEMENT.

1. ALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE [C.B.C.] AND ANY LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. ALL DETAILS, SECTIONS AND NOTES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO BE TYPICAL AND SHALL APPLY TO SIMILAR SITUATIONS ELSEWHERE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECOGNIZE THAT THE PLANS USED FOR THE DRAWINGS MAY DIFFER FROM THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL SITE. DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CHECK ALL DIMENSIONS IN RELATION TO SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE WORK OF ALL TRADES. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER AND SHALL BE RESOLVED BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY OF CONSTRUCTION AND PERSONNEL.

PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHORING, BRACING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL SAFETY ORDINANCES.

2. DESIGN OF THE INTERIM REPAIR OF THE LOVERS POINT PIER IS BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES , INC. (HKA), GEOTECHNICAL AND COASTAL ENGINEERS, WATSONVILLE, CA (PROJECT NO.

M11897.2). ANY STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR DETAILS NOT PREPARED BY HKA SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY HKA PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING CONCRETE AND GROUTED ROCK SURFACES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND APPROVED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF STEEL AND CONCRETE.

6. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
EPOXY BONDED REBAR MUST BE INSTALLED AND GROUTED IN THE PRESENCE OF HKA.

CONCRETE SHALL BE SAMPLED AND TESTED AS PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN THESE NOTES (SEE SHEET 14).

SHOTCRETE APPLICATION SHALL BE OBSERVED BY THE HKA AND SHALL BE SAMPLED AND TESTED AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEER (SEE SHEET 14).

SHEET 14 CONTAINS A SPECIAL INSPECTION SCHEDULE WITH FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS NOTED.

7. INSPECTIONS

THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR ALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND HKA INCLUDING ANY REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS INCLUDE STRUCTURAL CONCRETE TESTING AND SHOTCRETE TESTING. NOTE THE FOLLOWING REGARDING THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION:

A. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF OBSERVATIONS, THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL A WRITTEN STATEMENT IDENTIFYING THE FREQUENCY AND EXTENT OF STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION.

B. PROVIDE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS ON THE PLANS INDICATING WHICH SIGNIFICANT CONSTRUCTION STAGES, INCLUDING THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURAL SYSTEM, ARE TO BE VISUALLY OBSERVED. [§1705 CBC] C. AT THE CONCLUSION OF WORK INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT, THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVER SHALL SUBMIT TO THE

BUILDING OFFICIAL A WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT THE SITE VISITS HAVE BEEN MADE AND IDENTIFY ANY

REPORTED DEFICIENCIES WHICH, TO THE BEST OF THE STRUCTURAL OBSERVER'S KNOWLEDGE, HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED.

3. SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE
A. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TEST PANEL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT AT THE SITE TO DEMONSTRATE PROPER

MIX DESIGN
B. STRENGTH: SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE SHALL DEVELOP A 28-DAY MINIMUM ULTIMATE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AS FOLLOWS:

ARTIFICIAL ROCK FASCIA 5,000 PSI
B. SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE MIXES: PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:

PORTLAND CEMENT: ASTM-A150, TYPE II, 8 SACKS/CY. MINIMUM.

POZZOLAN: MAY BE A MAXIMUM OF 20% OF THE 8 SACKS/CY. OF CEMENT.

AIR ENTRAINMENT: NOT ALLOWED FOR ANY SHOTCRETE OR CONCRETE.

4. REINFORCING STEEL
ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE CHROMX 4100 BY MMFX TECHNOLOGIES CONFORMING TO ASTM A1035/A 1035M GRADE 100. TIE WIRE SHALL BE 16 GA. ANNEALED WIRE. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE EPOXY COATED. REBAR SHALL BE RIGIDLY HELD IN PLACE WITH APPROVED DEVICES PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE. USE PLASTIC REBAR CHAIRS AND BOLSTERS WITH STRENGTH TO WITHSTAND 300 LBS. CONCENTRATED LOAD WITHOUT PERMANENT DEFORMATION OR BREAKAGE. HOOKS, BENDS, FABRICATION AND PLACING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAILING REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURE" ACI NO. 315. REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SALT WATER MIST BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE BLANKET COVERING. REMOVE COVER JUST PRIOR TO SHOTCRETE/CONCRETE PLACEMENT. IN CASE OF EXPOSURE TO SALT WATER, WASH STEEL REINFORCEMENT WITH POTABLE WATER JUST PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.

SHOTCRETE AND CONCRETE SHALL BE MACHINE MIXED. SUBMIT CONCRETE MIX DESIGNS TO ENGINEERS FOR APPROVAL.

MAX. WATER-SOLUBLE
CHLORIDE ION IN CONC.
3/8 MAX (PEAGRAVEL OK)

0.40 MAX
NO
NO
8 MIN
5,000 PSI MIN

SEALER REQUIRED

WATER REDUCER

MAX WATER/CEMENT

AGGREGATE

ACCELERATOR

INTEGRAL COLOR

SACKS OF CEMENT

STRENGTH
15% OF CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL

SHOTCRETE FASCIA

0.15 PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF CEMENT
CONCRETE/SHOTCRETE TO COMPLY WITH ACI 318-22, TABLE 4.3.1 FOR EXPOSURE CLASS C2

CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT TEST RESULTS INDICATING MIX DESIGN COMPLIES WITH MAXIMUM WATER-SOLUBLE

CHLORIDE ION CONTENT IN CONCRETE PRIOR TO POUR OF CONCRETE AND/OR APPLICATION OF SHOTCRETE GRADE 100 REINF. COVER 3 INCH MIN

8. HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS
HANDRAILS SHALL BE 1.5" INCH ROUND SCHEDULE 80 ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL AS MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED BY "AGS STAINLESS" OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. GUARDS SHALL BE 2" SCHEDULE 80 ROUND ASTM A554 TYPE A316 STAINLESS STEEL MANUFACTURED AND INSTALLED BY "AGS STAINLESS" OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT.
ℓdh ℓext
db
ℓdh
ℓext
db

POINT OF WHICH

BAR IS DEVELOPED
180
° DIAMETER BEND
(6db NO. 3 THRU NO. 8)
(8db NO. 9 THRU NO. 11)

GREATER OF
4db & 2.5 IN.

NOT WITHOUT ENG APPROVAL

OK IF NEEDED
NO. 3 24 32.0
11897
MAX. WATER-SOLUBLE
CHLORIDE ION IN CONC.

FLY ASH (POZZOLAN)
3/4 MAX

0.40 MAX
NO
NO
8 MIN
5,000 PSI MIN

SEALER REQUIRED

WATER REDUCER

MAX WATER/CEMENT

AGGREGATE

ACCELERATOR

INTEGRAL COLOR

SACKS OF CEMENT

STRENGTH
15% OF CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL

CONCRETE SLABS, BEAMS, AND STAIRS

0.15 PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF CEMENT
GRADE 100 REINF. COVER 3 INCH MIN

NOT WITHOUT ENG APPROVAL

OK IF NEEDED

MAX SLUMP

AIR CONTENT
4 +/- 1 INCHES
1-2% MAXIMUM (ENTRAPPED AIR ONLY)
SILICA FUME (MINERAL ADMIXTURE) 10% OF CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL

FLY ASH (POZZOLAN)

MAX SLUMP

AIR CONTENT
2 +/- 1 INCHES
1-2% MAXIMUM (ENTRAPPED AIR ONLY)
SILICA FUME (MINERAL ADMIXTURE) 10% OF CEMENTITIOUS MATERIAL

PLASTICIZER NOT PERMITTED
PLASTICIZER AS SPECIFIED BY READY MIX COMPANY LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS

CORROSION INHIBITOR PER MANUFACTURER SPEC

CORROSION INHIBITOR PER MANUFACTURER SPEC
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 12
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 GENERAL NOTES 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

GENERAL NOTES

PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The purpose of the Lovers Point Pier Interim Repair Project (Project) is to provide short-term structural repairs to the exterior of the Lovers Point Pier in Pacific Grove, CA to maintain the integrity of the core of the pier, and to replace the perimeter railing and stairways for public safety.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS
1) What heavy machinery is proposed to be used and at which phases of construction is heavy equipment required? Equipment will be determined after selection of the Contractor. 2) Where is the construction staging area? Will construction equipment and materials be stored on the beach? The staging area will be the parking lot delineated on Sheet 3, Staging and Access, per City request on 1/31/2023. 3) Will the construction be done primarily from the blufftop above, or will construction primarily take place from the pier?
Not applicable to this Project.
4) If construction will take place from the pier, how will heavy equipment gain access to the construction area? The Contractor will drive equipment down to the pier via the access route delineated in Sheet 3, Staging and Access.

The Contractor will remove the equipment from the pier at the end of each work day. 5) How much of the adjacent park and beach areas will be impacted by construction activities and for how long? The area of the project where active construction operations are being performed should remain closed to public access during the work due to safety concerns. The Contractor is anticipating +/- (TBD) working days to complete their work. This will be adjusted as necessary to take advantage of favorable tide and daylight conditions and will be impacted by unfavorable conditions. The actual duration will be governed by these conditions. 6) If public access will be closed during construction, please describe why it will be necessary to close public access and the estimated duration of the closure.

As explained above, the pier area should remain closed to public access for the duration of the project to allow for public safety. When conditions are safe for the public to enter the work area, those areas will be reopened for public use.
7) Will construction equipment and activities enter the waters of the Monterey Bay? The Contractor does not anticipate entering the water with any equipment. Contractor shall utilize means and methods to protect the waters of Monterey Bay and prevent any debris or wet concrete from entering those waters. 8) What will the duration and timing of construction be? The duration of construction will be determined by the Contractor. The Contractor shall develop a schedule that is coordinated with the City of Pacific Grove Public Works Department prior to the start of construction an shall provide that schedule to the Engineer. The schedule for completing the required work may be dependent on tide levels and ocean wave runup and will be determined once all permits are in hand.

MARINE PROTECTION
To prevent any impacts upon the marine habitat, no non-native spoils or debris shall be allowed to enter these areas or shall be allowed to adversely impact the beach or enter the tidal waters. Under no circumstances shall use of equipment be allowed seaward of the Mean High Tide Line in areas where water is present. Equipment and vehicle use on the beach during construction shall be minimized. Contractor employee parking shall be permitted in designated parking areas only. Although construction activity will occur on the beach and near ocean areas, such activity must be strictly confined to the area where work is required. Any areas of loose or unstable soil must be stabilized immediately. Any heavy equipment operation must be conducted with care near the edge of the water to prevent damage to the habitat. Care must be taken so the inland and beach areas outside the work area are not damaged during construction. If a fuel or lubricant spill occurs, immediate notification of the Engineer and appropriate authorities shall be made. Any equipment driven onto the beach should be well maintained and inspected daily to verify that there are no fuel, hydraulic fluid or lubricant leaks.

ACCESS PROTECTION
The proposed access route is on The City of Pacific Grove property. Impacts to the access route must be minimized.

The impacts to beach access and residential access must be minimized. Appropriate signage shall be used to make sure that beach users know what to do as they approach the work sites. The Contractor shall be responsible for the restoration of the access route and staging area to its original condition. The Contractor shall use access routes and staging areas as directed by the Owner and shall repair access routes and staging areas to pre-project condition or better as directed by the Owner. The Contractor shall not close or obstruct streets, walks, drives or other occupied or used spaces or facilities without the written permission of the Owner. Underground utilities are located under the access route and shall be protected from damage.

EXAMINATION OF JOB SITE, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
A. The Contractor shall carefully examine the work site and the Plans and Specifications. The submission of a bid shall be conclusive evidence that the Contractor has investigated and is satisfied as to the conditions to be encountered, as to the character, quality, and scope of work to be performed, the quantities of materials to be furnished and as to the requirements of the Geotechnical and Coastal Engineering Investigation and Plans and these Specifications. The plans consist of 14 sheets.

B. The City of Pacific Grove is the Owner of the Project Area. Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc. (HKA), Consulting Geotechnical, Coastal and Civil Engineers, is the Engineer for the Project and will represent the Owner during design and construction of the Project.

C. The contractor shall recognize that the plans used for the drawings of the Pier Structure may differ from the actual physical site. Dimensions are approximate. Before proceeding with the work, it shall be the Contractor's responsibility to check the site in relation to the drawings and specifications. Report any discrepancies to the Owner and the Engineer.

D. The Contractor must attend a pre-bid meeting with the Engineer prior to submitting a proposal to complete the proposed work. The Contractor will be required to attend a pre-construction meeting with the Engineer prior to the commencement of construction. The purpose of these meetings is so the Contractor may ask questions concerning the work and to make sure the Contractor understands the permit conditions and environmental constraints.

COMPLIANCE WITH CODES:

A. All construction and materials shall be as specified and as required by the 2022 California Building Code, the Building Code Standards, locally enforced codes and authorities. All articles, materials and equipment shall be installed, applied and connected as directed by the manufacturer's latest written specifications except where otherwise noted.

B. The Contractor shall be fully informed of all applicable codes, laws, ordinances and regulations of any jurisdiction or authority, and shall adhere strictly thereto. Compliance with all laws, ordinances and regulations of Federal, State, County and Local agencies shall take precedence over all other Contract documents.

INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE
HKA shall be called to perform construction observation and to make a final inspection of the site to assure that the work is completed according to plan. Winter storm inspections shall be conducted to identify problem areas and assess the need for corrective actions. Written documentation should be maintained that notes inspection dates, corrective actions needed and corrective actions taken. The Owner and their representatives shall have the right to inspect any material brought to the job site and shall have the right to reject any materials deemed defective or not conforming to the specifications. HKA shall be called to perform construction observation and to make a final inspection of the drainage and erosion control facilities to assure that the work is completed according to plan. Written documentation should be maintained that notes inspection dates, corrective actions needed and corrective actions taken.

NOTIFICATION OF ENGINEER
The Engineer should be notified at least fourteen (14) working days prior to any site clearing or grading so that the work in the field can be coordinated with the grading contractor, and arrangements for surveying, testing and observation can be made.

TIMETABLE
These plans show the proposed work to be implemented after review and approval from the City of Pacific Grove.

WORK HOUR RESTRICTIONS
Tidal conditions may restrict the available work hours. Wave runup related flood conditions may restrict the available work time. Hours of operation or movement of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Such operations shall not occur on Sundays or holidays unless otherwise approved by the City of Pacific Grove.

NOISE CONTROL
All equipment that will operate at the project site shall be equipped with residential type mufflers.

SITE DISTURBANCE
Disturbance of the property beyond the limits of the necessary work area shall be avoided. Sensitive habitat exists immediately adjacent to the work area. The Contractor should expect regulatory agencies to be particularly concerned about any impacts outside the work area.

STAKING AND LOCATION

1. A surveyor shall locate design locations and mark with stakes prior to construction, for review by Engineer and use during construction by contractor. The contractor shall pay for staking.

2. Reference points will be established by the Engineer or by the Surveyor. These reference points will be used to control placement of the structures relative to cultural features and to elevation. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to furnish and set such additional marks and stakes as is determined necessary to establish lines and grades required for the completion of the work specified, as shown on the plans. The contractor shall have a grade checker on site to check elevations and control the position of the work.

3. Local survey control: Spikes will be set for use as elevation control points. Do not disturb spikes. The vertical elevation datum is NAVD1988.

DRAINPIPES AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Existing drainpipes and underground utilities within the work area shall be located by the Contractor and avoided and/or protected during construction.

A. The Contractor shall locate, identify, and protect utilities from damage. Location of existing utilities shown on plans is approximate. The existing underground utility locations are not shown on the plans. The Contractor is responsible for locating all existing utilities prior to starting work and protecting utilities throughout course of work.

The locations of any existing drain facilities shown on the plans are approximate. The contractor shall verify locations and protect in place, if within the limits of work. The contractor shall plug, cap, or reconnect /reinstall existing drainage facilities damaged during construction, as directed by engineer.

B. The Contractor shall not interrupt utilities serving occupied or used facilities without the written permission of the Owner and authorities having jurisdiction. If necessary, provide temporary utilities.

C. The Contractor shall notify the Owner prior to shut-off of existing utilities.

GRADING
No grading of earth materials is proposed as part of the project. Some demolition of concrete materials will occur.

Demolished concrete materials shall be removed from the site and disposed of at an approved disposal site. No concrete rubble derived from demolition shall be allowed to enter the ocean waters.

EROSION CONTROL
During construction, erosion control measures shall be in place. These construction measures shall be in the form of dust control, straw mulch, straw bales and wattles placed at the appropriate areas of work as approved by the Engineer.

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
If undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at this time, Haro, Kasunich and Associates, Inc., shall be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.

Deleterious Materials: The Contractor shall carefully excavate all materials necessary, of whatever nature, for construction of the work. Any material of an unsuitable or deleterious nature discovered during excavation shall be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer before proceeding with the work.

Voids: Any voids exposed during excavation work shall be backfilled as directed by the Engineer.

Excavation: Sands, soils and bedrock materials excavated during construction shall be exported to an approved dumpsite, as directed by the Engineer.

Temporary Cut Slopes: Maximum gradients shall not exceed 1.0:1.0 (H:V), except in hard bedrock. Temporary cut slopes must be inspected by the Engineer during excavation, to determine the need for temporary shoring or temporary underpinning of adjacent retaining structures and/or improvements. The Contractor shall be required to implement shoring as required by the Engineer and as required by OSHA and other regulatory agencies.

Drainage Pipes: All drainage discharge locations shall be approved by the Engineer.

DUST CONTROL
For dust control purposes, watering of exposed surfaces during clearing, excavation, stockpiling and grading, and in the late morning and the end of each workday shall be done. Grading activities shall be prohibited during periods of high winds greater than 30 miles an hour.

EROSION CONTROL
During construction, erosion control measures shall be in place in areas to be graded, as well as around the stockpiled soils. These construction measures shall be in the form of dust control, straw mulch, straw bales and wattles and/or silt fences placed at the appropriate areas of work as directed by the Engineer.

SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
If undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that planned at this time, our firm shall be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given.

AS SHOWN
11897 LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 13
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & BEST MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
The Lovers Point Pier Repair Project (Project) proposes short-term structural repairs to the exterior of the pier to maintain the integrity of the core of the pier, and replacement of the perimeter railing and stairways for public safety. The Project would include replacement of approximately 165 linear feet of railing on the upper platform, replacement of approximately 85 linear feet of low-profile bull rail on the lower platform, and reconstruction of the concrete stairs and topping slab on both the upper and lower pier platforms. The Project would also include installing up to 2,000 square feet (up to 40 cubic yards) of reinforced shotcrete around the perimeter of the pier to protect the integrity of the pier. Reconstruction of the topping slab includes removing 7 inches of the topping slab (walking surface) concrete on both the upper pier platform (approximately 1,150 square feet) and lower pier platform (approximately 900 square feet), doweling into the existing remaining concrete slab, and installing new reinforced concrete slab of same thickness. The reconstructed stairways will be built to current code standards and include guardrails and handrailing.

The Lovers Point Pier repair project would occur in a single phase and be scheduled to minimize impacts during the busy summer months between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The construction staging area will be located in the adjacent park and fenced off from the public, and have a contractor trailer, temporary utilities, and gated entrance.

The Project is within City limits and is a public area that falls under the City's recently updated Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The Project construction laydown and staging area will be in the adjacent park open space area and repairs are anticipated to be performed with only land-based equipment. The construction laydown and staging area is approximately 1,000 square feet, as shown in Sheet 3.

Installation of the pier perimeter shotcrete will be done only during low tide and scaffolding will be installed on the sides of the pier for over water work. Construction best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during the duration of the Project and include prevention measures related to over water work and the protection of adjacent waterways. Traffic along Ocean View Boulevard will be maintained except during material transfers during demolition and construction.

The Project shall conform to requirements of these plans and specifications, as well as permit obtained for the project with the more stringent requirements taking precedence.

All work shall take place during daylight hours, and lighting of the beach and ocean area is prohibited.

Grading of intertidal areas is prohibited, except removal of existing debris, concrete, rubble, etc., is allowed in these areas.

Construction (including but not limited to construction activities, and materials and/or equipment storage) is prohibited outside of the defined construction, staging, and storage areas.

Equipment washing, servicing, and refueling shall not take place on the beach, and shall only be allowed at a designated inland location.

Appropriate best management practices shall be used to ensure that no spills of petroleum products or other chemicals take place during these activities. Spill kits will be placed onsite.

The construction site shall maintain good construction site housekeeping controls and procedures (e.g., clean up all leaks, drips, and other spills immediately; keep materials covered and out of the rain, including covering exposed piles of soil and wastes; dispose of all wastes properly, place trash receptacles on site for that purpose, and cover open trash receptacles during wet weather; remove all construction debris from the beach; etc.).

All erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of construction as well as at the end of each workday. As needed, silt fences, or equivalent apparatus, shall be installed at the perimeter of the construction site to prevent construction-related runoff and/or sediment from entering into Monterey Bay.

All public recreational use areas and all beach access points impacted by construction activities shall be restored to their pre-construction condition or better within three days of completion of construction.

The Permittee shall notify planning staff of the Coastal Commission's Central Coast District Office at least three working days in advance of commencement of construction or maintenance activities and immediately upon completion of construction or maintenance activities.

Minor adjustments to these construction requirements may be allowed by the Executive Director if such adjustments: (1) are deemed reasonable and necessary; and (2) do not adversely impact coastal resources.

ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
Nothing in these additional construction requirements shall change the need to comply with the Coastal Commission requirements listed above. If questions arise, request clarification from the Project Engineer or Engineering Geologist.

Construction access shall be as directed by owner. Impacts to the access route must be minimized and disturbance along the access route must be restored to pre-construction conditions upon project completion. The following provisions shall apply to the work.

Any debris generated during construction shall be removed from the site.

All work shall take place during daylight hours and lighting of the beach area is prohibited unless, due to extenuating circumstances, the City of Pacific Grove Public Works Director or Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission authorizes non-daylight work and/or beach area lighting.

Construction work and equipment operations shall not be conducted seaward of the mean high water line, with the exception of removal of the existing rip rap that is seaward of the mean high water line.

All construction equipment shall remain as far landward as possible, and shall avoid contact with ocean waters and intertidal areas.

All erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of construction as well as at the end of each work day.

Silt fences, or equivalent apparatus, may be installed at the perimeter of the construction site to prevent construction related runoff and/or sediment from entering into the Pacific Ocean. Fencing may be used on the beach for erosion and sediment controls as necessary to contain rock and/or sediments at the project site.

All construction materials and equipment placed on the beach shall be stored beyond the reach of waves and extreme tides, and shall be removed from the beach if necessary to avoid inundation. Materials that remain on the beach overnight must be located in the dry sand back shore area, as close to the toe of the bluff as possible. The extent of overnight storage areas shall be kept the minimum necessary.

No fueling, or fuel storage shall be allowed on the beach at any time.

The Contractor (and Permittee) shall monitor weather forecasts and move all construction equipment and materials off of the beach in advance of storm or extreme tidal events.

Construction (including but not limited to construction activities, and materials and/or equipment storage) is prohibited outside of the defined construction, staging, and storage areas.

No work shall occur on the pier during weekends or Holidays unless, due to extenuating circumstances (such as tidal issues or other environmental concerns), and the City of Pacific Grove Public Works Director or Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission authorizes such work.

All heavy equipment used for concrete pouring shall be set at least 25 feet landward of the pier entrance and shall use flexible hoses or articulated booms to deliver concrete to the project site. Other heavy equipment may be used periodically atop the pier, but shall be removed from the pier when not in use.

Equipment washing, refueling, and/or servicing shall not take place on the beach, or within 50 feet of the shoreline.

Petroleum products and other hazardous materials will be kept on paved roads or a distance of at least 50 feet from the shoreline.

The construction site shall maintain good construction site housekeeping controls and procedures (e.g., clean up all leaks, drips, and other spills immediately; keep materials covered and out of the rain (including covering exposed piles of soil and wastes); dispose of all wastes properly, place trash receptacles on site for that purpose, cover open trash receptacles during wet weather, remove any construction debris from the beach).

All areas of beach disturbed by construction activities shall be restored to their original pre-construction condition. Upon completion of construction, the access route and staging area shall be restored to their original condition.

At all times during project construction activities, copies of each of the following shall be maintained in a conspicuous location at the construction job site (where such copies shall be available for public review) and all persons involved with the construction shall be briefed on the content and meaning of each prior to commencement of construction: (a) the signed coastal development permit; (b) the approved final plans; and (c) the approved construction management plan.

MARINE PROTECTION
To prevent any impacts upon the marine habitat, no overburden or wet cement may be allowed to adversely impact the beach or enter the tidal zone. Under no circumstances shall use of equipment be allowed seaward of the mean high tide line when seawater is present.

Any areas of loose or unstable soil must be stabilized immediately after other portions of the project are finished. Any heavy equipment operation must be conducted with care near any bluff edges to prevent the destabilization of the substrate and additional erosion. Care must be taken so coastal bluffs outside the work area are not damaged during construction.

CONSTRUCTION COORDINATOR
Contractor shall provide a construction coordinator that can be contacted during construction, should questions arise during construction (in case of both regular inquiries and in emergencies). Their contact information (including their address and 24 hour phone numbers) shall be conspicuously posted at the job site in a manner so that the contact information is readily visible from public viewing areas. The posting shall indicate that the construction coordinator should be contacted to answer questions that arise during construction (in case of both regular inquiries and in emergencies). The construction coordinator shall record the name, phone number, nature of all complaints (if any) received during construction, and shall investigate complaints and take remedial action, if necessary, within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint or inquiry.

BEST MANAGEMENT PLAN PROVISIONS
Appropriate protocols shall be implemented to manage all construction-phase Best Management Practices (including installation and removal, ongoing operation, inspection, maintenance, and training), to protect coastal water quality. The Contractor shall provide the SWPPP for the project. Additional Best Management Practices shall include the following:

Best Management Practices:

A. Minimize Erosion and Sediment Discharge. During construction, erosion and the discharge of sediment off-site or into coastal waters shall be minimized through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices including:

1. Land disturbance during construction (e.g., clearing, grading, and cut-and-fill) shall be minimized, and grading activities shall be phased, to avoid increased erosion and sedimentation.

2. Erosion Control Best Management Practices (such as mulch, soil binders, geotextile blankets or mats, or temporary seeding) shall be installed as needed to prevent soil from being transported by water or wind. Temporary Best Management Practices shall be implemented to stabilize soil on graded or disturbed areas as soon as feasible during construction, where there is a potential for soil erosion to lead to discharge of sediment off-site or to coastal waters. This should be done where staging, access, and construction activities occur.

3. Sediment Control Best Management Practices (such as silt fences, fiber rolls, sediment basins, inlet protection, sand bag barriers, or straw bale barriers) shall be installed as needed to trap and remove eroded sediment from runoff, to prevent sedimentation of coastal waters. This should be done where staging, access, and construction activities occur.

B. Minimize Discharge of Construction Pollutants. The discharge of other pollutants resulting from construction activities (such as chemicals, paints, vehicle fluids, petroleum products, asphalt and cement compounds, debris, and trash) into runoff or coastal waters shall be minimized through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices, including:

1. Materials Management and Waste Management Best Management Practices (such as stockpile management, spill prevention, and good housekeeping practices) shall be installed or implemented as needed to minimize pollutant discharge and polluted runoff resulting from staging, storage, and disposal of construction chemicals and materials. Best Management Practices shall include, at a minimum:
a) Covering stockpiled construction materials, soil, and other excavated materials to prevent contact with rain, and protecting all stockpiles from stormwater runoff using temporary perimeter barriers. b) Cleaning up all leaks, drips, and spills immediately; having a written plan for the clean-up of spills and leaks; and maintaining an inventory of products and chemicals used on site.
c) Proper disposal of all wastes; providing trash receptacles on site; and covering open trash receptacles during wet weather. d) Prompt removal of all construction debris from the beach. e) Detaining, infiltrating, or treating runoff, if needed, prior to conveyance off-site during construction.

2. Fueling and maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles shall be conducted off site if feasible. Any fueling and maintenance of mobile equipment conducted on site shall not take place on the beach, and shall take place at a designated area located at least 50 feet from coastal waters, drainage courses, and storm drain inlets, if feasible (unless those inlets are blocked to protect against fuel spills). The fueling and maintenance area shall be designed to fully contain any spills of fuel, oil, or other contaminants.

Equipment that cannot be feasibly relocated to a designated fueling and maintenance area (such as cranes) may be fueled and maintained in other areas of the site, provided that procedures are implemented to fully contain any potential spills, such as fueling the equipment with an impermeable visqueen catchment apron designed to capture any possible spills.

C. Minimize Other Impacts of Construction Activities. Other impacts of construction activities shall be minimized through the use of appropriate Best Management Practices, including:

1. The damage or removal of non-invasive vegetation (including trees, native vegetation, and root structures) during construction shall be minimized, to achieve water quality benefits such as transpiration, vegetative interception, pollutant uptake, shading of waterways, and erosion control.

2. Soil compaction due to construction activities shall be minimized, to retain the natural stormwater infiltration capacity of the soil.

3. The use of temporary erosion and sediment control products (such as fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, mulch control netting, and silt fences) that incorporate plastic netting (such as polypropylene, nylon, polyethylene, polyester, or other synthetic fibers) shall be avoided, to minimize wildlife entanglement and plastic debris pollution.

D. Minimize Impact of Construction In, Over, or Adjacent to Coastal Waters and Habitat. Construction shall protect the coastal waters and habitat by implementing Best Management Practices, including:

1. No construction equipment or materials (including debris) shall be allowed at any time within the tidelands when ocean water is present there.

2. Construction activity shall not be conducted seaward of the Mean High Tide Line, unless tidal waters have receded, and the area is part of the authorized work area.

3. All work shall take place during daylight hours, and lighting of the beach and ocean area is prohibited.

4. All construction equipment and materials placed on the beach during daylight construction hours shall be stored beyond the reach of tidal waters.

5. Tarps or other devices shall be used to capture debris, dust, oil, grease, rust, dirt, fine particles, and spills to protect the quality of coastal waters.

6. All erosion and sediment controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of construction, as well as at the end of each workday. At a minimum, if grading is taking place, sediment control Best Management Practices shall be installed at the perimeter of the construction site to prevent construction-related sediment and debris from entering the ocean, waterways, natural drainage swales, and the storm drain system, or being deposited on the beach. Natural beach sand, cobbles, and bedrock materials shall not be removed from the beach.

7. Only rubber-tired construction vehicles shall be allowed on the beach; the only exception shall be that tracked vehicles may be used if the Executive Director agrees that they are required to safely carry out construction. When transiting on the beach, all construction vehicles shall remain as high on the upper beach as possible and shall avoid contact with ocean waters and intertidal areas.

8. All shotcrete and construction material debris resulting from construction activities shall be removed from the beach at the end of each workday. AS SHOWN LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS 11897
PGCC 6-21-23

Date
Scale
Job
Drawn
MF
Sheet 14
REVISIONS BY HARO, KASUNICH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL & COASTAL ENGINEERS 116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 (831) 722-4175 SPECIAL INSPECTION NOTES 03-13-2023
OF 14 SHEETS
AS SHOWN LOVERS POINT PIER INTERIM REPAIR CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE LOVERS POINT PARK APN 006-155-099, OCEAN VIEW BLVD., PACIFIC GROVE, CA 93950 100% PLANS 11897
PGCC 6-21-23

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Lovers Point Pier Repair
Project
May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 1 PGCC 6-21-23

1. Receive Report

2. Provide staff with direction on pursuing the
interim repair design solution

3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item
May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 2 PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 3 •January 2021-seaward tip of the Pier was damaged by wave runup & wave impact forces during storms.•Geotechnical/coastal engineering firm consulted to provide repair recommendations. •Minimal info on the existing pier structure available  additional exploration needed prior to developing repair recommendations. •The tip of the pier was closed to ensure safety and will remain closed until repairs can be made.

PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 4 •$100,000 was budgeted for the Lovers Point Pier Project via FY21/22 CIP. •December 2021, Council authorized an agreement with GHD ($99,852) •Scope of services includes pier investigation, conditions assessment report, interim repair design, & grant support PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 5 Improvements made in1980’s; construction of
concrete walls & fascia; created shell around the
pier & lower dock
1909 cement pier further extended. Two 25-30’ tall
concrete monoliths tipped off the pier, covered
w/granite rock & cement. Wooden wharf extensions
also created
Before 1907, a cement pier was constructed,
replacing a wooden wharf
Circa 1900 there was a granite quarry which
enlarged the cove were the beach exists today
Pier investigation began with a review of historical documentation PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 6 •Internal structures of the pier assessed by boreholes & core samplings •Allowed for review of the composition & strength of structure •Wave runup analysis, riprap revetement size analysis & visual inspections also performed Additional details and information can be found in the Pier Condition Assessment included as Attachment 1.

PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 7  Primarily a gravity structure;
not column supported or reliant on strength of concrete beams; founded on natural ridge of granite bedrock  Comprised of interbedded
layers of concrete, a matrix of concrete bonded to rip rap and rip rap rock  Voids/joints exists
within/between the interbedded layers
 Some concrete is weak, other
segments are strong.
 1980’s reno encased weaker
concrete & rip rap; Reinforced concrete walls & slabs provide protective layer for the weaker legacy material  Reinforced concrete used iron &
carbon rebar; corroded and expanded resulting in severe concrete cracks & spalling, further exposing rebar.  Rebar supporting concrete walls
severely corroded at east end (upper deck). Panel of concrete dislodged & feel into the ocean during wave events.

PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 8  The pier has performed as
expected based on its construction
 The gravity structure is not in
danger of a catastrophic failure at this time
 As the reinforced concrete walls
continue to fail, exposing more of the vulnerable core of the gravity structure, the rate of deterioration will accelerate If nothing is done to reinforce and stabilize the core of the structure, the damage will get worse in the coming decade.

If the pier & rock jetty were to cease to exist – the sediment flow & accumulation patterns in the vicinity of the pier would be altered to the detriment of public access/recreational beach usage – the beach would be adversely affected, directly impacting public beach usage.

PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 9  As an element of
the scope of work, GHD prepared an interim repair option & plans set  Interim repair
solution will address identified deficiencies & improve & enhance safety of pier structure.

Interim Repair Design included as Attachment 2.

PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 10 Engineer's estimate for the interim repair is $1.35 million.

Interim repair is anticipated to last upwards of 20 years. • Install reinforced shotcrete fascia on
existing pier wall face.
• will act as a structural element & a
cosmetic surface that matches adjacent concrete
• Replace concrete at edges & top of pier
w/sound concrete edge
• Replace concrete footings & guard rail on
pier perimeter
• Demolish a 7” segment of the existing slab;
pour new 7” thick monolithic slab on the seaward 75 feet of the upper deck • Replace concrete slab on entire lower pier
deck
• Reform & resurface lower staircase that
extends into water from the lower pier deck

SCOPE OF WORK
PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 11 Feasibility study & deeper analysis of the long-term alternatives & detailed coastal engineering would be required if the Council wants to pursue long-term options High-level analysis of long-term repair alternatives explored. Intention to conceptually understand methods by which a long-term repair solution could be achieved & potential drawbacks

1. Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment & construction of a new wharf supported by deep foundations

2. Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment and construction of a new concrete gravity structure supported directly upon the granite bedrock formation that makes up the sea floor

3. Removal of existing concrete pier gravity structures above 0.0 feet NAVD88 & construction of new pier atop old concrete foundation elements and riprap.

4. Total removal of the pier & rip-rap revetment; construction of a rip-rap jetty in the same footprint with adequately sized rock to an approximate elevation of +20.0 feet NAVD88. Construct a concrete gravity structure atop the rip-rap jetty as a causeway for recreational access • This alternative is preferred from a constructability, environmental impact & longterm protection standpoint PGCC 6-21-23

May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 12

GRANT SUPPORT
• GHD actively researching grant
opportunities for the interim repair
• Availability of grants is time
dependent (grants have specific periods for submittal)
• If Council interest in interim repair
exists, a deeper dive into grant funding will take place • Staff can return with updates &
options for funding interim repair

PERMITTING
• Project will require permits from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC)
• Interim repair discussed at a highlevel with CCC staff; begin dialogue in advance of formal application
• Formal permit app will be submitted
if Council expresses interest in pursuing the interim repair PGCC 6-21-23

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Questions?
May 17, 2023 Joyce Halabi, [email protected] 13 PGCC 6-21-23

 








  !"#$%!$&%'$%!$('$%!$%)'*$+,'+-),.' /0 -,1212343556789:  6; <;=
>?@A=
<==
>B=
<C
=
C
=

D #'6>

;

A
>

=

B=
<C
=
C
=

DEF$G$HI:%)$%!%(# %J+%G &/%)$%!%.K$G$H(' %J+%G.'%.L M0 NOPQRSTUVWXYZ[YY\][^_X]X`\a[b^caYXb[^daW[eXaf^dg\hXihj_^k[[Z\XlYfYa[ZmmnPOPQSoRSp^`qrstu^_ ^v[`wxwyz{|s}uc`l[YYf^c\_[Yc_[aW[h^`a[`aXYY\d[~ €,%):%" )9,%,%!‚# -!'$G/,/ƒ,)JI *,H) H J,‚„ M,) J9 $!+9$,)†‡ˆ‰Š‹Œ,H%$)H) Ž,'+)%$J,JJ-ƒJ+%!+$%G$JJ-,J),L%)‚$!L+*,$J‚ / + $!M,J+/ !,"$!%J* )++,)/H%+'*%!‚),H%$)K$MJ.H-)J-$!L%G !L+,)/J G-+$ !+ %'*$,M,%G !L G%J+$!L' /HG,+,),! M%+$ !.‘+$JK%)%!‚%%" !, K+*,/ J+$/H )+%!+/%++,)J+*,# -!'$G/-J+ ' !J$‚,)),L%)‚$!L9%'$K$'’) M, J%JJ,+JK )$+J),J$‚,!+J%!‚M$J$+ )J+ +*,' %J+. *,J-//%)"),H )+ƒ"+*,' !J-G+%!+J' !'G-‚,J+*%+%G !L+,)/,!*%!',/,!+H) Ž,'+ -G‚ƒ, J-H,)$ )$!+*,G !L)-!Iƒ-+%!$!+,)$/),H%$)$J!,',JJ%)"+ %M $‚K-)+*,)“%'',G,)%+,‚”‚%/%L,+ +*,J+)-'+-),%!‚ƒ%J,I%J,GG%JI!,',JJ%)"+ ),‚-',)$JJ+ +*,H-ƒG$' JJ%K,+"I%!‚+ H) M$‚, ),'),%+$ !%G-J, K+*,%‚Ž%',!+ƒ,%'*. • ,M,)I+*,–—˜™š›š—˜œœœžœœŸž˜› ž¡—¢›£– ¤H) M$‚,J,JJ,!+$%G%‚M$',),L%)‚$!L¥‚‚$+$ !%G ¥'+$ !J%!‚¦,)M$',JK )+*,‘!+,)$/,H%$)I$!%‚‚$+$ !+ +*,§%J$'¦,)M$',J‚,J')$ƒ,‚$!+*, J+%KK),H )+¨¦' H, K© ).¨*,L-$‚%!',H) M$‚,‚$!+*,#¥I!,,‚J+ ƒ,ƒ,),ª-$),‚$!+*, ' !J-G+%!+ J# !J+)-'+$ !€ '-/,!+JI«¬ž¢ž­—¢ž›¬ž­—®®—¯š˜°›¬¢žž£±¤¡¢—²šœš—˜œ—­›¬ž–  Ÿ³œ›´žµ™™ž™›—›¬ž¶–·¸¹« º–«»·¸¼¸½¾¼¾¸«¿À¸¿ ·Á»¹»·¸¹¶—³›®š˜ž™—˜¹¬žž› ±—­›¬ž¿®µ˜œ™µ›ž™±Ã±ÃÄÅÄ±Æ Ç- +$!L+*,#¥6 7”ÈɉŒÊˋ‡ÌÍʇ͊‰ˆ‰Ήϊ‹ÐÐÑÊÒÓÎωÍʇЋΉŠ‰ÎÔÕÖ×Ø×ÙÚÛÜÝÞØßÖÞà×ÞÚÞØáâÚáÙÚãÞßÞâäØÚ×äãÞØß×Ùå áÙßÖÞØÞäâÛááã×ÙØÖäÛÛáææäßÞãçäØæÞÛÛäØÛááØÞà×ÞÚÞØáââäØÚ×äßÖäßäãÞàäãßÛèÝÞßäÚÖÞÝâãáéßÖÞà×Þã ØßãÜÚßÜãÞêÕÖÞÚáÙÚãÞßÞ×ÙßÖÞáÚÞäÙæäßÞãäààÞäãØßáÖäëÞìÞÞÙÚáÛáÙ×íÞÝæ×ßÖéäã×ÙÞÛ×âÞçäÙÝßÖÞ Ý×ØßÜãìäÙÚÞäØØáÚ×äßÞÝãÞéáëäÛáâàäãßáãäÛÛáâ×ß×ØÛ×îÞÛèßáÝáéáãÞÖäãéßÖäÙåááÝêïááØÞà×ÞÚÞØáâ âäØÚ×äßÖäßäãÞàäãßÛèÝÞßäÚÖÞÝâãáéßÖÞà×ÞãØßãÜÚßÜãÞÚäÙìÞãÞéáëÞÝæ×ßÖäØéäÛÛÚãäÙÞáãàÞãÖäàØäÙ ÞðÚäëäßáãáàÞãäßÞÝâãáéßÖÞ×ÙßäÚßàäãßáâßÖÞÚáÙÚãÞßÞà×ÞãÝÞÚîêñæáãîéäÙæáÜÛÝÛ×îÞÛèÙÞÞÝßáäØØ×Øß ßáàÛäÚÞØÛ×ÙåØäãáÜÙÝáãäÙÚÖáãìáÛßØ×ÙßáßÖÞÚáÙÚãÞßÞÝÞìã×Øà×ÞÚÞØØáßÖÞèÚäÙìÞÛ×âßÞÝçàÛäÚÞÝ×Ùä ßãÜÚîçäÙÝßãäÙØàáãßÞÝßáäÙäààãáàã×äßÞÝ×ØàáØäÛØ×ßÞêòыÐóӈ‰Š‡óˆ‹Ë‰‹Ð‰‡Ë‹ŠÊ‡Œ‰‡ˆóÓÓô óõõŠÊõŠ‹óˆ‰Ôö÷øäåÞùù öÕÖÞà×ÞãØßãÜÚßÜãÞØç‰Ë‰‡‹ˆÑˆÑ‰‹‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŠ‰õó‹ŠÐ‹ŒõӉŒ‰‡ˆ‰ÎØÖáÜÛÝìÞÞðàÞÚßÞÝßáÝÞßÞã×áãäßÞ áëÞãßÖÞÙÞðßÚáÜàÛÞáâÝÞÚäÝÞØßáßÖÞàá×ÙßßÖäß×ßæ×ÛÛÙÞÞÝßáìÞãÞàä×ãÞÝäåä×Ùæ×ßÖäØ×é×Ûäã×ÙßÞã×é ÚáÙÚÞàßáãÚáéàÛÞßÞÛèãÞàÛäÚÞÝæ×ßÖäÙÞæÚáäØßäÛØßãÜÚßÜãÞêҊ‹‡ÌˆÑ‹Ðˆ‹Œ‰ŠóŒ‰ˆÑ‰Š‰õó‹ŠÐÑÊÒÓΠωŒÊ‡‹ˆÊŠ‰ÎóˆˆÑ‰ω̋‡‡‹‡Ìó‡Î‰‡ÎʉóÍÑ‹‡ˆ‰ŠЈʊŒЉóÐʇóЉÓÓóÐóˆˆÑ‰‰‡ÎʉóÍÑ ÓóŠÌ‰óˉ‰Ë‰‡ˆóÍÍʌõ󇋉΋ˆÑыÌш‹Î‰ÐÔòщŒÊ‡‹ˆÊŠ‹‡ÌÐÑÊÒÓÎωÍʇÎÒ͈‰ÎÏôó Š‰Ì‹Ðˆ‰Š‰Î͋ˋÓʊЈŠÒ͈ҊóÓ‰‡Ì‹‡‰‰ŠÐõ‰Í‹óӋ‹‡Ì‹‡ŒóŠ‹‡‰ЈŠÒ͈Ҋ‰ÐÔ“H%L,73” PGCC 6-21-23

 




   
   





 
 





  



 


 



  

 


  !"#$%&'#()*+,-./((%,+#01(&2*,34$%4%(1((+5#66+0+%*#7,%*0+*)%)(,%$1( 6$+77160-$%)8-0-115+(0+*84+1$&$+49$#4&#*6+*0%0-1)*61$7:+*8;16$%,<&0-$11#66+0+%*#7=+176()$>1:16 ,$%(((1,0+%*(&#*6#*+*96140-,%#(0#7#*681%01,-*+,#71*8+*11$+*8#*#7:(+(?-+,-+*,7)61(#701$*#0+>1 #*#7:(+(#*6?#>1$)*)4#*6=%$,1#*#7:(+(%*0-1,-%(1*#701$*#0+>181%@10$:3A1%01,-*+,#761(+8* 4#$#@101$(=%$01@4%$#$:(-%$+*8&$10#+*+*8?#77(&#*6=%)*6#0+%*?%)76#7(%;14$%>+6163/,%(0 1(0+@#01,#*;14$14#$16#0:%)$$1B)1(03CDEFGHIJKLJ MNFOPQRSTRUQRSUVROIWXHUFYWROZ MROQ[WFOW PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Council Policy Posting Contracts and Agreements Online This item was continued from Council's June 7, 2023 meeting.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Direct the City Attorney to return with a Council Resolution creating Posting Contracts and Agreements Online Policy 000-29.

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
A draft ‘Posting Contracts and Agreements Online’ Policy 000-29 is attached.

Posting important documents is a practice by many cities in California.

Posting allows public confirmation of Council and Staff actions.

Posting provides ease of public access.

Posting reduces public records requests.

Posting will enhance the public’s trust and confidence in local government.

A contract was recently awarded to Cities Digital Inc. and a Document Management System implemented.

Phase I with posting of vendor contracts to a public portal was launched February 2023.

Phase II will include other types of City agreements such as leases and grants and include a search capability.

Posting of documents should be in accordance with Records Management and Records Retention Schedule Policy 000-19.

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.

PGCC 6-21-23

Attachments
Peake PPT
Draft Policy
PGCC 6-21-23

Mayor Bill Peake
City of Pacific Grove
Council Policy –
Posting Contracts and Agreements
Online
June 7, 2023
PGCC 6-21-23

Posting Contracts and Agreements
 a practice by many cities in California. public confirmation of Council and Staff actions. ease of public access, reduces public records requests  builds public trust PGCC 6-21-23

Posting Contracts and Agreements
 Cities Digital Inc. contract PG’s Document
Management System
 Phase I launched February 2023 website portal Phase II other types of City agreements.

PGCC 6-21-23

Posting Contracts and Agreements
POLICY & PROCEDURE: All contracts and agreements having a value of $5,000 or greater shall be posted online within 30 days of execution by all parties. Contracts and agreements shall include but not be limited to:
 purchases  construction, professional, maintenance, and vendor services  leases  grants  loans  promissory notes  franchises  other contracts and agreements Confidential information contained within vendor or legal services contracts or other agreements shall be excluded on approval by the City Attorney. Contracts and agreements shall remain posted in accordance with Council Policy 000-19 Records Management and Records Retention Schedule.

PGCC 6-21-23

Posting Contracts and Agreements
 Recommendation
Direct the City Attorney to return with a Council
Resolution creating Posting Contracts and
Agreements Online Policy 000-29.

PGCC 6-21-23

End
PGCC 6-21-23

City of Pacific Grove
City Council Policy
Policy Governing Policy No. Effective Date Page
Posting Contracts and Agreements
Online
000-29 xxx 1 of 1
PURPOSE:

To provide ease of public access to important contracts and agreements describing actions taken by city government.

POLICY & PROCEDURE:

All contracts and agreements having a value of $5,000 or greater shall be posted online within 30 days of execution by all parties.

Contracts and agreements shall include but not be limited to:
• purchases
• construction, professional, maintenance, and vendor services • leases
• grants
• loans
• promissory notes
• franchises
• other contracts and agreements
Confidential information contained within vendor or legal services contracts or other agreements shall be excluded on approval by the City Attorney.

Contracts and agreements shall remain posted in accordance with Council Policy 000-19 Records Management and Records Retention Schedule.

Adopted xxx - Resolution 23-xxx
PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Arborist Services 1 Year Extension This item was continued from Council's June 7, 2023 meeting.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize a one-year extension agreement with Albert Weisfuss for Professional Arborist Services for FY23/24 in an amount not to exceed $100,000

1. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove (City) contributes to the welfare and aesthetic qualities of the community through rules and regulations relating to planting, care, maintenance and removal of trees in public and private areas. These regulations are enforced by the City’s Arborist.

The City Arborist’s responsibilities include safeguarding trees from unauthorized trimming or removal, enforcing the tree ordinance, implementing forestry programs, conducting public outreach, reviewing tree applications, coordinating with tree contractors, scheduling City related tree activity and all other activities associated with the City’s urban forest.

On May 16, 2018, the City Council authorized an agreement with Albert Weisfuss for Professional Arborist Services for the City of Pacific Grove in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per fiscal year with the option to extend for an additional 4 years. The base agreement was executed for 2018/19 Fiscal year; yearly extensions were authorized in FY19/20, FY20/21, FY21/22, and FY22/23.

In FY22/23, the City embarked on comprehensive revisions to Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 12, Trees and the Urban Forest. The arborist's professional expertise is an integral element in the revision process and the process is well underway.

As a result, staff is requesting a one-year extension agreement with Albert Weisfuss for Professional Arborist services to allow completion of the Title 12 revision process, which is well underway.

During the one-year extension, Staff will issue a request for qualifications (RFQ) for professional arborist services and subsequently bring forward a recommendation for FY24/25 arborist services PGCC 6-21-23

following the competitive RFQ process.

Authorizing this one-year extension is consistent with the City Council’s 2023-24 Work Plan and Priority Area of Focus to complete the title 12 revisions will ensure safeguards and process improvements to protect the City’s urban canopy. This action is also consistent with Pacific Grove Municipal Code, 2.16.080 Bidding procedures – Dispensation when. (d) When a service, such as that available from an attorney, accountant, architect or specialized consultant, involves a specialized knowledge or personal skill;
Scope of Work – 1 Year Extension
The contract Arborist would be expected to continue the same level of service for the following scope of activities during the extension year:

Update and enforce the City’s Tree Ordinance
Enforce the City’s Hazard Tree Risk Management Policy
Recommend and assist in the implementation of Forestry Program goals and objectives Consult with constituents on tree-related matters
Conduct public outreach and education programs
Establish schedules and methods for providing forestry services, identify resource needs, and review needs with appropriate management staff
Survey tree populations and conduct a variety of environmental impact studies and investigations Administer the tree permit processes, maintain all related records, and produce reports when requested
Provide presentations and written reports to the City Manager, Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and City Council
Respond to tree-related emergencies
Mr. Weisfuss is a Certified Arborist with over 35 years of experience in caring for trees, parks and greenbelts across the Monterey Peninsula, including over 10 years providing Arborist Services to the City. Additionally, Mr. Weisfuss has a track record of excellent customer service, a demonstrated ability to work collaboratively with residents and City Staff, extensive experience in community outreach programs, updating and maintaining tree inventories, and assisting local municipalities in the development of comprehensive urban forestry programs and policy documents.

Title 12 Revision Update
As illustrated in the milestones for the City Council Goals Workplan 2023-24, Title 12 revisions are anticipated to be reviewed by the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission in the first quarter of FY23/24 and subsequently, the City Council in the second quarter.

OPTIONS
Do not authorize the extension and request staff issue an RFQ. If an RFQ is issued, the Title 12 process may be significantly delayed
Provide alternate direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$100,000 has been proposed in the FY23/24 Budget via Public Works Operations to allow for arborist services.

If approved, the City’s standard professional services agreement amendment (reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, Risk Management, and the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority) will be prepared for the Mayor’s signature per the standard contracting process. The agreement extension will PGCC 6-21-23

not be routed until the FY23/24 budget is formally adopted.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
Original Agreement
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Actuarial Analysis for the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive the report and presentation

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item

DISCUSSION
The City Council requested an actuarial study on the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans. The actuarial study includes reference to the following topics, as wells as additional information:

Overview of the increase in the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) following the issuance of pension obligation bonds
A regional comparison of CalPERS pension information
Analysis of the impact of pay increases on the UAL and the City's unfunded liability payment Options to reduce the City's unfunded liability or smooth the City's annual pension payments through the use of a Section 115 Trust
The attached actuarial report contains in-depth technical information. A Summary Memo has been provided to assist in reviewing the data. Doug Pryor, Senior Consulting Actuary, ASA, EA, MAAA, from Foster and Foster (previously Bartel Associates), will provide a presentation of the results and will be available for questions at the Council Meeting.

OPTIONS

1. Receive report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
PGCC 6-21-23

Actuarial Report_Summary Memo
Actuarial Analysis Report
PGCC 6-21-23

Memorandum
July 12, 2023
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 620 San Mateo, CA 94402 ꞏ (650) 377-1600 ꞏ www.foster-foster.com To: Tori Hannah
Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager City of Pacific Grove
From: Doug Pryor
Senior Consulting Actuary
Foster & Foster
Re: City of Pacific Grove
CalPERS Actuarial Analysis
The City engaged Foster & Foster (formerly Bartel Associates) to analyze the following issues with respect to the City’s CalPERS Safety and Miscellaneous employee retirement plans:
 Why the City has an Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) after the City issued Pension Obligation Bonds (POB’s) in 2006 to pay off the UAL at that time.
 Comparison of the City’s UAL with other local cities.  Cost impact of the 3% COLA provided for Safety and Miscellaneous at the beginning of 2022/23.  Cost impact of a potential 2% COLA for Safety and Miscellaneous effective July 1, 2023.  Expected future required CalPERS contributions and how a Section 115 Supplemental Trust can be used by the City for rate stabilization.

Following is a summary of the full report on these issues contained in the Council packet.

Changes in the Unfunded Liability Following the Pension Obligation Bond The City issued a $19.4 million POB in 2006 to pay off the Miscellaneous and Safety Plan CalPERS unfunded liabilities. We estimate the unfunded liability for these plans has grown to approximately $53.1 million as of June 30, 2022. Pages 17 and 18 summarize the primary reasons and associated dollar amounts of the increase including:
 CalPERS changed their methodology in 2013 for how costs were allocated within the risk pool. This changed allocated costs from a payroll basis to liability basis. Due to the City having eliminated fire services (but not the fire liability for retirees), the City had a disproportionately low payroll allocation.  Decrease in the discount rate over time, from 7.75% in 2006, to 6.8% currently. Note that the lower the discount rate, which represents the long term expected return on assets, the higher the liability.  Investment returns below what was assumed, after including the impact of the asset allocation to the City when CalPERS methodology changed in 2013.

Comparative Information with Other Cities
Comparative data related to other cities within the region are provided on pages 19-21. A comparison on the UAL to salaries is a common benchmark. The City’s Safety UAL as a percentage of payroll on page 20 is significantly greater than other cities. This is primarily the result of the City contracting out fire services and retaining the original liability. The City’s UAL is now based on comparing the police salaries to the City’s UAL which includes the liability for both for police officers and the original firefighters. On page 21, the City’s funded ratio (ratio of assets to Actuarial Accrued Liability) as compared to other cities may be lower based on additional plan contributions by other entities and/or second pension tiers that were added.

PGCC 6-21-23

Date: June 12, 2023
To: Tori Hannah
From: Doug Pryor
Page: 2
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 620 San Mateo, CA 94402 ꞏ (650) 377-1600 ꞏ www.foster-foster.com Impact of Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA)
The impact of the July 1, 2022 3% COLA and potential July 1, 2023 2% COLA for Miscellaneous Employees, along with the related assumptions and projection charts are on pages 47-52 of the report. This same information for Safety employees can be found on pages 77-82. The calculations include that Miscellaneous (2%@60 employees) and Safety (3%@50 employees) continue to contribute 5% and 3%, respectively, to the City’s share of costs. The analysis treats the COLA’s as permanent long term increases to pay. It should be considered that, over the long term, a larger payroll increase now may result in lower payroll increases in the future. To the extent COLA’s given today will result in lower COLA’s in the future, the calculated cost increases will be mitigated.

There are 2 components to the City CalPERS contributions: Normal Cost (the value of benefits earned by active employees during the year), and UAL payments:
 Normal Cost
The City’s normal cost percentage will not change, however the dollar amount will increase due to the higher payroll. The Normal Cost increase for 2023/24 is approximately $45,000 (total for Miscellaneous and Safety).

Unlike the UAL payments summarized below, the increase in Normal Cost payments will take effect immediately upon the payroll increase and are expected to be ongoing indefinitely.  UAL
The City will first see an increase in the UAL in the June 30 actuarial valuation following the COLA, which is estimated as follows (total cost of the 2 COLA’s would be the sum of the 2 rows):

Scenario UAL Increase Calculated Miscellaneous Safety Total 3% COLA Increase 7/1/2022 June 30, 2023 $426,000 $224,000 $650,000 2% COLA Increase 7/1/2023 June 30, 2024 $290,000 $151,000 $441,000 City payments on the UAL increase will commence 2 years after the valuation in which the increase is reflected, with payments spread over 20 years. Following are the estimated payments (total cost of the 2 COLA’s would be the sum of the 2 rows):

Annual Payment
Scenario UAL Payment Years Miscellaneous Safety Total
3% COLA Increase 7/1/2022 2025/26 through 2044/45 $43,700 $23,000 $66,700 2% COLA Increase 7/1/2023 2026/27 through 2045/46 $29,800 $15,500 $45,000 Projections and Use of Section 115 Trust
As mentioned above, the estimated June 30, 2022 unfunded liability is approximately $53.1 million for the combined Miscellaneous and Safety Plans. While contributions that CalPERS will require from the City in the future are expected to pay off this unfunded liability, it will likely mean increasing contributions over approximately the next 10 years.

Projected contributions as a percentage of payroll, are show on page 37 for Miscellaneous and page 67 for Safety.

The projections are, in part, based on our Foster & Foster investment volatility model to provide likely ranges of future contributions:
 Page 37 shows Miscellaneous contributions (thick green line in the middle) are expected to increase from approximately 36.6% of payroll this year, to 48.6% of payroll in 2033/34. The vertical lines above and below each year provide a range of future contributions in each year due to investment volatility, with the range covering where contributions likely will be ½ of the time. So, for example, in 2033/34, half of the time the contribution will likely be between 35.2% and 59.6% of payroll.

PGCC 6-21-23

Date: June 12, 2023
To: Tori Hannah
From: Doug Pryor
Page: 3
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 620 San Mateo, CA 94402 ꞏ (650) 377-1600 ꞏ www.foster-foster.com  Page 67 shows Safety contributions (thick green line in the middle) are expected to increase from approximately 111.9% of payroll this year, to 142.7% of payroll in 2033/34. The vertical lines above and below each year provide a range of future contributions in each year due to investment volatility, with the range covering where contributions likely will be ½ of the time. So, for example, in 2033/34, half of the time the contribution will likely be between 108.9% and 171.4% of payroll.

Contributions after including POB debt service and offset for employee cost sharing agreements are on page 41 for Miscellaneous and page 71 for Safety.

To address the unfunded liability, the City could make additional contributions to CalPERS, or deposit funds in an irrevocable IRS Section 115 Supplemental Trust. Once money is deposited in the Supplemental Trust, it can only be used to transfer to CalPERS, or to reimburse the City for CalPERS contribution made. There are a number of service providers (e.g. PARS and CalPERS) who have pre-set Supplemental Trust accounts available to agencies.

One key advantage to setting up a Supplemental Trust over sending additional funds to CalPERS is that the City can use Supplemental Trust funds to help offset future CalPERS contribution increases. This will assist the City in smoothing annual future pension costs. A comparison of advantages and disadvantage of each approach can be found on page 92.

A specific illustration of how the Supplemental Trust can be used to smooth future pension costs can be found on pages 93-100. This analysis assumes a $500,000 one-time deposit to a Supplemental Trust, followed by additional percentage (2.5% for Miscellaneous and 4.0% for Safety) of payroll contributions over a four-year period (2023/24 through 2026/27). Pages 95 (Miscellaneous) and 98 (Safety) show how the Supplemental trust can be used to smooth out the expected CalPERS contribution peaks expected in future years.

For Miscellaneous, the green represents expected future contributions required to CalPERS (the contribution in 2022/23 also includes the final POB debt service payment) without the Supplemental Trust, and the orange line represents total City contributions with the Supplemental Trust. There are 3 phases:
1) In years through 2026/27, the full CalPERS contribution is made by the City with additional amounts contributed to the Supplemental Trust. This moves the total City cost up from the green line to the orange line.
2) In years 2028/29 through 2035/36, money is withdrawn from the trust. The City pays CalPERS 44.4% of payroll, with any additional amounts above this being paid by the Supplemental Trust. This moves the total City cost down from the green line to the orange line.
3) After 2035/36, the trust is depleted and full CalPERS contributions are once again paid by the City Overall, the Supplemental Trust in this example enables the City to limit total pension contributions to be not more than 44.4% of payroll (after final POB debt service payment is made in 2022/23).

A similar contribution structure can be seen for Safety on page 98, but with the final POB payment in 2028/29, the initial year contributions are much higher than the ultimate peak contribution of 135.7% of payroll.

PGCC 6-21-23

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

CALPERS MISCELLANEOUS & SAFETY PLANS
CalPERS Analysis – 6/30/21 Valuation
Preliminary Results
Doug Pryor, ASA, EA, MAAA
Bianca Lin, FSA, EA, MAAA
Wai Man Yam
Foster & Foster, Inc.

June 9, 2023
Contents
l:\pacificgrovecity\calpers\06-30-21\f&f_pacificgrovecity_23-06-09_calpers_misc_and_safety_21.docx Topic Page
Background 1
POB Analysis 13
UAL Analysis and Comparison 17
Miscellaneous Plan:

Historical Information 23
Projections 33
Pay Increase Analysis 47
Safety Plan:

Historical Information 53
Projections 63
Pay Increase Analysis 77
Leaving CalPERS 85
PEPRA Cost Sharing 87
Irrevocable Supplemental (§115) Pension trust 89
Actuarial Certification 101
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 1

DEFINITIONS
 PVB - Present Value of all Projected
Benefits:
 The value now of amounts due to be
paid in the future
 Discounted value (at valuation date -
6/30/21), of all future expected benefit
payments based on various (actuarial)
assumptions
 Current Normal Cost (NC):
 Portion of PVB allocated to (or “earned” during) current year  Value of employee and employer current service benefit  Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL):
 Discounted value (at valuation date) of benefits earned through valuation date [value of past service benefit]
 Portion of PVB “earned” at measurement

June 9, 2023 2

DEFINITIONS
 Target- Have money in the bank to cover Actuarial Liability (past service)  Unfunded Liability (UAAL or UAL) - Money short of target at valuation date  If all actuarial assumptions were always exactly met, then the plan assets would always equal AAL
 Any difference is the unfunded (or overfunded) AAL
 Every year, the actuary calculates the difference between the expected UAAL and Actual UAAL. This is a new layer or amortization base
 Each new layer gets amortized (paid off) over a period of time as part of the contribution [rate]
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 3

HOW WE GOT HERE
 Investment Losses
 CalPERS Contribution Policy
 Enhanced Benefits
 Demographics

June 9, 2023 4
HOW WE GOT HERE – INVESTMENT RETURN
Returns (after 2001) are gross returns, unreduced for administrative expenses, from CalPERS valuation reports, when available. Discount rate based on expected returns net of administrative expenses. 20-Year and 30-Year
average return rates on
6/30/22 are 6.8% and

7.6%, respectively
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 5
HOW WE GOT HERE – OLD CONTRIBUTION POLICY
 Effective with 2003 valuations:
 Slow (15 year) recognition of investment losses into funded status  Rolling 30 year amortization of all (primarily investment) losses  Designed to:
 First smooth rates and
 Second pay off UAL
 Mitigated contribution volatility

June 9, 2023 6
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
 At CalPERS, Enhanced Benefits implemented using all (future & prior) service  Typically not negotiated with cost sharing
 City of Pacific Grove (Miscellaneous is not Enhanced Benefit):

Tier 1 PEPRA
Miscellaneous 2%@55 FAE1 2%@62 FAE3
Safety 3%@50 FAE1 2.7%@57 FAE3
 Benefit = Percentage x (years City service) x FAE
 FAE1 is highest one year (typically final) average earnings  FAE3 is highest three years (typically final three) average earnings  PEPRA tier implemented for new employees hired after 1/1/13  Employee pays half of total normal cost
 2023 Compensation limit
 Social Security participants: $146,042
 Non-Social Security participants: $175,250

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 7
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
CalPERS Benefit Formulas1
1 City formulas shown in colored lines

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Miscellaneous
2%@60 2%@55 2.5%@55 2.7%@55 3%@60 PEPRA 2%@62
Retirement Age
Benefit Multiplier

June 9, 2023 8
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
CalPERS Benefit Formulas2
2 City formulas shown in colored lines

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Safety
2%@55 2%@50 3%@55 3%@50
PEPRA 2%@57 PEPRA 2.5%@57 PEPRA 2.7%@57
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 9
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
 Around the State
 Large retiree liability compared to actives
 State average: 59% for Miscellaneous, 67% for Safety
 Declining active population and increasing number of retirees  Higher percentage of retiree liability increases contribution volatility  City of Pacific Grove percentage of liability belonging to retirees:
 Miscellaneous 71%
 Safety 86%

June 9, 2023 10

CALPERS CHANGES
 April 2013: CalPERS adopted new contribution policy
 No asset smoothing or rolling amortization
 February 2018: New amortization policy for 2021/22 contributions  Fixed dollar (level) 20-year amortization rather than % pay (escalating)  5-year ramp up (not down) for investment gains and losses  CalPERS Board changed the discount rate to 7%, still phasing in to rates:

Rate Initial Impact Full Impact
 6/30/16 valuation 7.375% 18/19 22/23
 6/30/17 valuation 7.25% 19/20 23/24
 6/30/18 valuation 7.00% 20/21 24/25
 In the November 2021 meeting, CalPERS Board adopted new  Discount rate and investment allocation
 Discount rate: 6.8% for 6/30/2021. UAL impact matches investment gain amortization (5-year ramp-up)
 Asset allocation has higher investment risk than current portfolio  Experience study (Demographic assumptions)
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 11

CALPERS CHANGES
 Risk Mitigation Strategy
 Move to more conservative investments over time to reduce volatility  Only when investment return is better than expected
 Lower discount rate in concert
 Essentially use ≈50% of investment gains to pay for cost increases  Likely get to 6.0% discount rate over 20+ years
 Risk mitigation suspended from 6/30/16 to 6/30/18 valuation  Did not trigger for 6/30/19 or 6/30/20 valuations
 First trigger for 6/30/21 valuation – 6.8% discount rate

June 9, 2023 12

CALPERS CHANGES
Risk Mitigation Strategy
Likely Future Discount Rate/Investment Return Impact
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 13

POB ANALYSIS
 POB issued in 2006 to pay off Side Funds
 Total amount of $19.4 Million
 Debt service payments end in fiscal year 2022/23 for Miscellaneous and 2028/29 for Safety
 Miscellaneous/Safety allocation same as in 2017 study  Remaining payments (in $ millions), payments made July 31:

Miscellaneous Safety Total
2022/23 $0.986 $1.359 $2.345
2023/24 - 1.405 1.405
: : : :
2028/29 - 1.650 1.650
 Bond payment schedule has increasing interest rates
 0.49% initial year, increasing to 298% in final year
 Equivalent to approximate 6.7% overall fixed rate.

June 9, 2023 14

POB ANALYSIS
POB Debt Service
(Amounts in $000’s)
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 15

POB ANALYSIS
POB Balance
(Amounts in $000’s)

June 9, 2023 16

POB ANALYSIS
Estimated POB Gain/(Loss) at 6/30/223
(Amounts in $Millions)
A. CalPERS Investment Earnings4 $16.566
B. POB Interest Payments5 (16.698)
C. Cost of Issuance (0.457)
D. Net [(A) + (B) + (C)] (0.589)
3 Net dollars saved without reflecting timing of savings. 4 Accumulated earnings since issuance based on actual CalPERS investment return for each year.

Earnings include impact of Risk Pool allocation change 6/30/13. 5 Interest payments based on overall 6.62% fixed rate cost of borrowing.

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 17

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
Significant Changes Since June 30, 2006
 Methodology Change (June 30, 2013):
 Actuarial Value of Assets to Market Value of assets
 Risk pool allocation: payroll to liability
 Discount rate changes:
 June 30, 2011 7.75% to 7.50%
 June 30, 2016 7.50% to 7.38%
 June 30, 2017 7.38% to 7.25%
 June 30, 2018 7.25% to 7.00%
 June 30, 2021 7.00% to 6.80%
 Investment returns (06/07 to 21/22):
 Actual market value returns
5.82% return before reflecting 6/30/13 risk pool method change 6.66% return after reflecting 6/30/13 risk pool method change  7.36% assumed

June 9, 2023 18

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
Estimated 6/30/22 UAL Sources
(Amounts in $Millions)
Source Miscellaneous Safety Total
 Side Fund $ - $ - $ -
 Share of Pre 2013 Pool UAL6 4.4 8.2 12.6
 Methods & Assumptions7 7.7 11.1 18.7
 Investment (Gain)/Loss8 9.4 12.9 22.3
 Non Investment (Gain)/Loss (0.4) (0.1) (0.5)
 Total 21.1 32.0 53.1
6 Estimated $9.7 million UAL due to risk pool allocation change from payroll to liability allocation. 7 Primarily (approximately $14 million) due to discount rate change from 7.75% when risk pool paid off, to 6.8% currently. 8 Includes changes from Actuarial Value of Assets to Market value of assets in 2013 including investment gains/(losses) before 6/30/13.

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 19

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
6/30/21 UAL Comparison with Other Cities
(Amounts in $Millions)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
Miscellaneous UAL Safety UAL Total UAL
Carmel-By-The-Sea Capitola Pacific Grove Seaside Gilroy Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz

June 9, 2023 20

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
6/30/21 UAL as % of Pay Comparison with Other Cities

60%
260%
460%
660%
860%
1060%
1260%
Miscellaneous UAL as % of Pay Safety UAL as % of Pay Total UAL as % of Pay Carmel-By-The-Sea Capitola Pacific Grove Seaside Gilroy Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 21

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
6/30/21 Funded Ratio Comparison with Other Cities

June 9, 2023 22

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 23

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - MISCELLANEOUS
2011 2016 2020 2021
Actives
 Counts 66 55 74 73
 Average PERSable Wages $ 64,800 $ 68,300 $ 73,100 $ 70,400  Total PERSable Wages 4.3 3.8 5.4 5.1
Inactive Members
 Counts
 Transferred 28 28 35 30
 Separated 33 49 51 58
 Receiving Payments 140 132 140 144

June 9, 2023 24

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - MISCELLANEOUS
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21
Actives 66 68 60 48 55 55 60 62 68 74 73
Receiving
Payments 140 111 119 125 132 132 133 136 137 140 144
-
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 25

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
June 30, 2020 June 30, 2021
 Actuarial Accrued Liability
 Active $12,000,000 $13,900,000
 Retiree 44,300,000 44,400,000
 Inactive 4,500,000 4,200,000
 Total 60,800,000 62,500,000
 Assets 41,500,000 47,800,000
 Unfunded Liability 19,300,000 14,700,000
 Funded Ratio 68.2% 76.5%

 Average funded ratio for
CalPERS Public Agency
Miscellaneous Plans 72.3% 83.7%

June 9, 2023 26

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
City CalPERS Assets and Actuarial Liability ($Millions)9 9 Projected 2022 assets reflects -7.5% CalPERS investment return for 2021/22.

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 27

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
Discount Rate Sensitivity
June 30, 2021
Discount Rate

6.80% 6.30%10 5.80%
AAL $62,500,000 $66,000,000 $69,400,000
Assets 47,800,000 47,800,000 47,800,000
Unfunded Liability 14,700,000 18,200,000 21,600,000
Funded Ratio 76.5% 72.4% 68.9%
10 Estimated by Foster & Foster.

June 9, 2023 28

FUNDED RATIO - MISCELLANEOUS
6/30/22 funded status estimated
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 29

FUNDED STATUS (MILLIONS) - MISCELLANEOUS
6/30/22 funded status estimated

June 9, 2023 30

CONTRIBUTION RATES - MISCELLANEOUS
FY02 contribution rates are missing
FY
99 FY
00 FY
01 FY
02 FY
03 FY
04 FY
05 FY
06 FY
07 FY
08 FY
09 FY
10 FY
11 FY
12 FY
13 FY
14 FY
15 FY
16 FY
17 FY
18 FY
19 FY
20 FY
21 FY
22 FY
23 FY
24 ER Normal Cost 7.2% 6.5% 6.6% 0 6.9% 7.3% 7.5% 8.2% 8.3% 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 8.4% 8.3% 8.4% 8.7% 8.3% 8.5% 8.6% 8.4% 8.6% 8.8% 9.5% 9.4% 9.1% 10.2% Total ER Cont Rate 10.3% 5.0% 3.9% 0 2.5% 5.0% 11.9%17.4% 8.5% 9.0% 11.4%11.1%11.3%12.1%12.3%12.7%12.2%19.2%23.8%24.3%28.6%32.5%32.7%34.0%36.6%36.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 31

CONTRIBUTION RATES - MISCELLANEOUS
6/30/21 Valuation
2023/2024 Contribution Rates
Total11 Tier 1 PEPRA
2%@55 2%@62
 Base Total Normal Cost 17.2% 18.8% 15.4%
 Class 1 Benefits
 Final One Year Compensation 0.3% 0.6% -
 Total Normal Cost 17.5% 19.4% 15.4%
 Formula’s Expected EE Contr. Rate 7.3% 6.9% 7.8%
 ER Normal Cost 10.2% 12.5% 7.7%
 Amortization Payment 25.8% 49.4% -
 Amortization of Side Fund - - -
 Total ER Contribution 36.0% 61.9% 7.7%
 Employee counts 73 31 42
 Employee payroll (in 000’s) $ 5,748 $ 3,002 $ 2,746
 Total ER Contribution $ (in 000’s) $ 2,068 $ 1,857 $ 211 11 Weighting of total contribution based on projected classic and PEPRA payrolls. Different from slide 22. Contribution rate has been adjusted based on projected FY23/24 payroll reflecting 3% pay increase at 7/1/22.

June 9, 2023 32

CONTRIBUTION RATES - MISCELLANEOUS
6/30/20 6/30/21
2022/202312 2023/2024
 Total Normal Cost 16.0% 17.5%
 Employee Normal Cost 6.8% 7.3%
 Employer Normal Cost 9.1% 10.2%
 Amortization Payments 27.4% 25.8%13
 Total Employer Contribution Rate 36.6% 36.0%
 2022/23 Employer Contribution Rate 36.6%
 6/30/17 Discount Rate & Inflation (5th Year) 0.4%
 6/30/18 Discount Rate change (4th Year) 0.6%
 6/30/21 Demog. Assumption change (1st
year, no ramp) 0.9%
 6/30/21 Risk Mitigation (Normal Cost change) 0.5%
 Other (Gains)/Losses mainly net investment gain -2.9%  2023/24 Employer Contribution Rate 36.0%
12 Different from slide 22. Contribution rate has been adjusted based on projected FY22/23 payroll reflecting 3% pay increase at 7/1/22. 13 Equivalent to 10.7% of UAL. One year, 6.8% interest on the UAL is 16.4% of payroll. 2023/24 amortization payment exceeds interest on the UAL, so there is no “negative amortization.” PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 33

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
 Investment returns:
 June 30, 2022 (7.5%)14
 Future returns based on stochastic analysis using 1,000 trials  Single year returns15 with current investment mix, no risk mitigation:

Percentile
25th 50th 75th
First 10 years -1.8% 6.0% 14.7%
After 10 years -0.7% 7.5% 16.4%
 Assumes investment returns will generally be lower over the next 10 years and higher beyond that.
 Discount Rate decreases due to Risk Mitigation policy – Ultimate rate 6.0%  No Other: Gains/Losses, Method/Assumption Changes, Benefit Improvements  Different from CalPERS projection
 Impact of Risk Mitigation Policy:
 Net impact of investment gain and discount rate change amortized over 20 years with 5 year ramp up
 Same amortization method for all future years
14 Gross return based on June 30, 2022 CalPERS Annual Financial Comprehensive Report issued in November 2022. 15 Nth percentile means N percentage of our trials result in returns lower than the indicated rates.

June 9, 2023 34

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
 New hire assumptions:
 All new hires assumed PEPRA members and none are Classic members  6/30/21 employee distribution:

Benefit Tier Count % 20/21 Payroll %
2%@60 FAE1 31 42.5% $2,682,454 52.2%
2%@62 FAE3 (PEPRA) 42 57.5% $2,454,391 47.8%
 Employee Cost sharing: 5% for classic members
 Projection includes City additional 3% pay increase @ 7/1/22, in addition to CalPERS salary assumption
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 35

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
Impact of 21/22 Investment Return
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
50th Percentile - actual -7.5% return for 21/22 50th percentile - assuming 6.8% investment return for 21/22 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 36

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 37

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 38

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 39

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

36.6% 36.0% 38.0% 40.0% 41.6% 42.9%

46.1% 46.9% 47.3% 48.6% 48.6% 48.6%

9.1% 10.2% 10.0% 9.8% 9.8% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9%

27.4% 25.8% 28.0% 30.2% 31.8% 32.9%

36.2% 36.9% 37.4% 38.7% 38.6% 38.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 40

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
2,044 2,068
2,243
2,432 2,597 2,754
3,044 3,179 3,302
3,485 3,580 3,685
510 585 591 597 613 640 658 676 695 714 733 753
1,534 1,483
1,652
1,836 1,984 2,114
2,386 2,502 2,607 2,771 2,846 2,932
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 41

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 42

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 43

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

33.4% 35.5% 37.8% 39.5% 41.0%

44.4% 45.2% 45.9% 47.2% 47.3% 47.5%

9.1% 10.2% 10.0% 9.8% 9.8% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 9.9%

15.2%
-2.6% -2.4% -2.2% -2.1% -1.9% -1.8% -1.6% -1.5% -1.4% -1.2% -1.1%

27.4% 25.8% 28.0% 30.2% 31.8% 32.9%

36.2% 36.9% 37.4% 38.7% 38.6% 38.7%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 44

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

2,893
1,918 2,100
2,296 2,468 2,632
2,928 3,069 3,198
3,387 3,488 3,600
510 585 591 597 613 640 658 676 695 714 733 753 849
(150) (143) (136) (129) (123) (116) (110) (104) (98) (92) (85) 1,534 1,483 1,652 1,836 1,984 2,114
2,386 2,502 2,607 2,771 2,846 2,932
-$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 45

FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS

50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
175%
200% Funded Status Projection
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile

June 9, 2023 46

FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 47

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS
 Methodology
 Assumes increases are addition to CalPERS Salary increase assumption  Assumes there is a permanent long term payroll impact  In reality, impact may wear away over time
 3% COLA Increase at 7/1/22
 6/30/23 UAL increase: $426,000
 2025/26 UAL payment increase : $43,70016
 2% COLA Increase at 7/1/23
 6/30/24 UAL increase: $290,000
 2026/27 UAL payment increase : $29,800
 Normal Cost
 No change to Normal Cost %
 Dollar amount increase from higher payroll
16 Level dollar amortization over 20 years

June 9, 2023 48

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS
Projected Payroll
2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27+
Without Pay Increase17 $ 5,429 $ 5,581 $ 5,737 $ 5,897 2.8% annual
increases
3% Increase at 7/1/22 5,591 5,748 5,909 6,074
3% Increase at 7/1/22 &
2% Increase at 7/1/23 5,591 5,863 6,027 6,196

17 Projected payroll from CalPERS 6/30/21 reports
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 49

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

33.4%

35.5%

37.8%

39.5%

41.0%

44.4% 45.2% 45.9%

47.2% 47.3% 47.5%

51.7%

34.1%

36.4%

38.0%

39.8%

41.3%

44.8% 45.7% 46.3%

47.8% 47.8% 48.0%

51.7%

32.9%

35.0%

37.2%

39.4%

40.8%

44.1% 44.9% 45.6%

46.9% 47.0% 47.2%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 50

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

2,893
1,918 2,100
2,296 2,468 2,632
2,928 3,069 3,198
3,387 3,488 3,600
2,809
1,905 2,087 2,239 2,410 2,573
2,868 3,007 3,136
3,326 3,424 3,533
2,893
1,927 2,109
2,306
2,507 2,672
2,969 3,110 3,240
3,429 3,531 3,646
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 51

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

35.5%

39.5%

44.4% 45.9% 47.3% 47.2%

43.5%

32.8%

28.8%

23.0%

10.9% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2%

51.7%

36.4%

39.8%

44.8% 46.3% 47.8% 47.7%

44.0%

32.9%

28.7%

22.7%

11.1% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2%

51.7%

35.0%

39.4%

44.1% 45.6% 47.0% 46.9%

43.2%

32.7%

28.8%

23.1%

10.7% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 52

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS
2,893
2,100
2,468
2,928
3,198
3,488
3,677 3,580
2,849
2,644
2,233
1,117 1,007 1,062 1,121 1,183
2,809
2,087
2,410
2,868
3,136
3,424
3,606 3,517
2,777
2,564
2,141
1,107 978 1,031 1,088 1,149
2,893
2,109
2,507
2,969
3,240
3,531
3,723 3,627
2,897
2,698
2,287
1,116 1,027 1,083 1,143 1,207
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 53

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - SAFETY
2011 2016 2020 2021
Actives
 Counts 22 15 21 18
 Average PERSable Wages $ 106,800 $ 106,400 $ 129,400 $ 128,800  Total PERSable Wages 2.3 1.6 2.7 2.3
Inactive Members
 Counts
 Transferred 43 32 21 20
 Separated 8 9 10 12
 Receiving Payments 91 112 122 122

June 9, 2023 54

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - SAFETY
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21
Actives 22 19 16 16 19 15 17 22 20 21 18
Receiving
Payments 91 95 102 111 111 112 112 116 120 122 122
-
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 55

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY
June 30, 2020 June 30, 2021
 Actuarial Accrued Liability
 Active $6,400,000 $7,300,000
 Retiree 69,300,000 69,700,000
 Inactive 4,600,000 4,300,000
 Total 80,300,000 81,300,000
 Assets 50,700,000 56,800,000
 Unfunded Liability 29,600,000 24,500,000
 Funded Ratio 63.2% 69.9%

 Average funded ratio for
CalPERS Public Agency
Safety Plans 69.2% 80.9%

June 9, 2023 56

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY
City CalPERS Assets and Actuarial Liability ($Millions)18 18 Projected 2022 assets reflects -7.5% CalPERS investment return for 2021/22.

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 57

PLAN FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY
Discount Rate Sensitivity
June 30, 2021
Discount Rate

6.80% 6.30%19 5.80%
AAL $81,300,000 $86,300,000 $91,300,000
Assets 56,800,000 56,800,000 56,800,000
Unfunded Liability 24,500,000 29,500,000 34,500,000
Funded Ratio 69.9% 65.8% 62.2%
19 Estimated by Foster & Foster.

June 9, 2023 58

FUNDED RATIO - SAFETY
6/30/22 funded status estimated
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 59

FUNDED STATUS (MILLIONS) - SAFETY
6/30/22 funded status estimated

June 9, 2023 60

CONTRIBUTION RATES - SAFETY
FY02 contribution rates are missing
FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 ER Normal Cost 10.6% 12.0% 0 13.1% 17.5% 17.5% 17.1% 17.0% 16.8% 17.2% 17.3% 17.5% 19.0% 19.1% 18.8% 18.4% 18.5% 18.6% 17.3% 17.8% 18.4% 19.5% 18.9% 18.1% 20.8% Total ER Cont Rate 0.0% 0.0% 0 4.7% 22.3% 32.4% 35.9% 17.9% 18.8% 29.0% 28.5% 28.5% 32.6% 32.3% 27.4% 29.2% 58.8% 68.4% 69.4% 94.3% 94.1% 83.5% 93.7%111.9%111.9%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 61

CONTRIBUTION RATES - SAFETY
6/30/21 Valuation
2023/2024 Contribution Rates
Total20 Tier 1 PEPRA
2%@55 2%@62
 Base Total Normal Cost 31.2% 34.6% 27.3%
 Class 1 Benefits
 Final One Year Compensation 0.8% 1.5% -
 Total Normal Cost 32.0% 36.1% 27.3%
 Formula’s Expected EE Contr. Rate 11.2% 9.0% 13.8%
 ER Normal Cost 20.8% 27.1% 13.5%
 Amortization Payment 91.1% 168.7% 0.8%
 Amortization of Side Fund - - -
 Total ER Contribution 111.9% 195.8% 14.4%
 Employee counts 18 9 9
 Employee payroll (in 000’s) $ 2,595 $ 1,395 $ 1,200
 Total ER Contribution $ (in 000’s) $ 2,904 $ 2,732 $ 172 20 Weighting of total contribution based on projected classic and PEPRA payrolls. Different from slide 22. Contribution rate has been adjusted based on projected FY23/24 payroll reflecting 3% pay increase at 7/1/22.

June 9, 2023 62

CONTRIBUTION RATES - SAFETY
6/30/20 6/30/21
2022/202321 2023/2024
 Total Normal Cost 29.1% 32.0%
 Employee Normal Cost 11.1% 11.2%
 Employer Normal Cost 18.1% 20.8%
 Amortization Payments 93.8% 91.1%22
 Total Employer Contribution Rate 111.9% 111.9%
 2022/23 Employer Contribution Rate 111.9%
 6/30/17 Discount Rate & Inflation (5th Year) 1.2%
 6/30/18 Discount Rate change (4th Year) 1.8%
 6/30/21 Demog. Assumption change (1st
year, no ramp) 3.1%
 6/30/21 Risk Mitigation (Normal Cost change) 1.4%
 Other (Gains)/Losses mainly net investment gain -7.5%  2023/24 Employer Contribution Rate 111.9%
21 Different from slide 50. Contribution rate has been adjusted based on actual FY22/23 payroll. 22 Equivalent to 10.2% of UAL. One year, 6.8% interest on the UAL is 60.8% of payroll. 2023/24 amortization payment exceeds interest on the UAL, so there is no “negative amortization.” PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 63

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
 Investment returns:
 June 30, 2022 (7.5%)23
 Future returns based on stochastic analysis using 1,000 trials  Single year returns24 with current investment mix, no risk mitigation:

Percentile
25th 50th 75th
First 10 years -1.8% 6.0% 14.7%
After 10 years -0.7% 7.5% 16.4%
 Assumes investment returns will generally be lower over the next 10 years and higher beyond that.
 Discount Rate decreases due to Risk Mitigation policy – Ultimate rate 6.0%  No Other: Gains/Losses, Method/Assumption Changes, Benefit Improvements  Different from CalPERS projection
 Impact of Risk Mitigation Policy:
 Net impact of investment gain and discount rate change amortized over 20 years with 5 year ramp up
 Same amortization method for all future years
23 Gross return based on June 30, 2022 CalPERS Annual Financial Comprehensive Report issued in November 2022. 24 Nth percentile means N percentage of our trials result in returns lower than the indicated rates.

June 9, 2023 64

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
 New hire assumptions:
 All new hires assumed PEPRA members and none are Classic members  6/30/21 employee distribution:

Benefit Tier Count % 20/21 Payroll %
3%@50 FAE1 9 50.0% $1,246,805 53.8%

2.7%@57 FAE3 (PEPRA) 9 50.0% 1,072,468 46.2%
 Employee Cost sharing: 3% for classic members
 Projection includes City additional 3% pay increase @ 7/1/22, in addition to CalPERS salary assumption
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 65

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
Impact of 21/22 Investment Return
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
50th Percentile - actual -7.5% return for 21/22 50th percentile - assuming 6.8% investment return for 21/22 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 66

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 67

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 68

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 69

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
111.9% 111.9% 117.7% 122.2% 125.9% 129.3%
137.8% 139.9% 141.4% 144.4% 143.4% 142.7%

18.1% 20.8% 20.4% 20.0% 19.9% 20.2% 20.2% 20.1% 20.0% 19.8% 19.7% 19.5%

93.8% 91.1% 97.3% 102.2% 106.0% 109.1%
117.6% 119.8% 121.4% 124.6% 123.7% 123.2%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 70

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
2,824 2,904 3,139 3,351 3,550 3,747
4,104 4,285 4,454 4,675 4,770 4,882
457 541 544 548 562 586 601 616 630 642 655 668
2,368 2,364 2,595 2,802 2,988 3,162
3,504 3,669 3,823 4,033 4,115 4,214
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 71

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service

June 9, 2023 72

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 73

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
164.3% 164.4% 170.5% 175.4% 179.4% 183.1% 191.9%
138.8% 140.4% 143.5% 142.5% 141.9%

18.1% 20.8% 20.4% 20.0% 19.9% 20.2% 20.2% 20.1% 20.0% 19.8% 19.7% 19.5%

52.4% 52.5% 52.8% 53.3% 53.5% 53.8% 54.2%
-1.1% -1.1% -1.0% -0.9% -0.8%

93.8% 91.1% 97.3% 102.2% 106.0% 109.1% 117.6% 119.8% 121.4% 124.6% 123.7% 123.2% -50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 74

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

4,147 4,268 4,549 4,811 5,057 5,305
5,719
4,251 4,420 4,644 4,741 4,854
457 541 544 548 562 586 601 616 630 642 655 668
1,323 1,363 1,410 1,461 1,507 1,558 1,614
(35) (33) (31) (30) (28)
2,368 2,364 2,595 2,802 2,988 3,162
3,504 3,669 3,823 4,033 4,115 4,214
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 75

FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY

June 9, 2023 76

FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 77

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
 Methodology
 Assumes increases are addition to CalPERS Salary increase assumption  Assumes there is a permanent long term payroll impact  In reality, impact may wear away over time
 3% COLA Increase at 7/1/22
 6/30/23 UAL increase: $224,000
 2025/26 UAL payment increase : : $23,00025
 2% COLA Increase at 7/1/23
 6/30/24 UAL increase: $151,000
 2026/27 UAL payment increase : $15,500
 Normal Cost
 No change to Normal Cost %
 Dollar amount increase from higher payroll

25 Level dollar amortization over 20 years

June 9, 2023 78

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
Projected Payroll
2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27+
Without Pay Increase26 $ 2,451 $ 2,520 $ 2,590 $ 2,663 2.8% annual
increases
3% Increase at 7/1/22 2,524 2,595 2,668 2,743
3% Increase at 7/1/22 &
2% Increase at 7/1/23 2,524 2,647 2,721 2,797

26 Projected payroll from CalPERS 6/30/21 reports
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 79

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
164.3% 164.4% 170.5% 175.4% 179.4% 183.1%
191.9%
138.8% 140.4% 143.5% 142.5% 141.9%
164.3%
168.8% 175.1% 179.3% 183.3% 187.1%
196.3%
141.6% 143.2% 146.4% 145.4% 144.8%
164.3%
161.6% 167.5% 172.4% 176.7% 180.4%
189.1%
136.9% 138.5% 141.5% 140.5% 140.0%
30%
50%
70%
90%
110%
130%
150%
170%
190%
210%
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 COLA Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 80

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
4,147 4,268 4,549 4,811 5,057 5,305
5,719
4,251 4,420 4,644 4,741 4,854
4,026 4,253 4,534 4,774 5,018 5,266
5,679
4,210 4,379 4,602 4,697 4,808 4,147
4,278 4,559 4,822 5,083 5,332
5,745
4,278 4,448 4,672 4,770 4,885
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 COLA Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 81

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
164.3% 170.5% 179.4%
191.9%
140.4% 142.5% 140.0%
127.2%

86.9%

75.2%

59.1%

28.8%

16.5% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4%
164.3%
175.1% 183.3%
196.3%
143.2% 145.4% 142.9%
129.8%

88.1%

76.5%

59.6%

28.5%

16.5% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4%
164.3% 167.5%
176.7%
189.1%
138.5% 140.5% 138.1%
125.5%

85.8%

74.3%

58.0%

29.2%

16.5% 16.4% 16.4% 16.4% 0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
COLA Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile)

June 9, 2023 82

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - SAFETY
4,147
4,549
5,057
5,719
4,420
4,741 4,924 4,728
3,413
3,120
2,592
1,335
809 850 896 946
4,026
4,534
5,018
5,679
4,379
4,697 4,877 4,683
3,359
3,082
2,536
1,280
786 826 870 919
4,147
4,559
5,083
5,745
4,448
4,770 4,955 4,758
3,436
3,146
2,593
1,378
825 867 914 965
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
COLA Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 83

COMBINED MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY
Funded Status Summary on June 30, 2021
(Amounts in $Millions)
Miscellaneous Safety Total
 AAL $ 62.5 $ 81.3 143.8
 Assets 47.8 56.8 104.6
 Unfunded AAL 14.7 24.5 39.2
 Funded Ratio 76.5% 69.9% 72.7%
Projected Funded Status Summary on June 30, 202227
(Amounts in $Millions)
Miscellaneous Safety Total
 AAL $ 63.5 $ 82.2 $ 145.7
 Assets 42.4 50.2 92.6
 Unfunded AAL 21.1 32.0 53.1
 Funded Ratio 66.8% 61.1% 63.6%
27 Projected 2022 assets reflects -7.5% CalPERS investment return for 2021/22.

June 9, 2023 84

COMBINED MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 85

LEAVING CALPERS
 Participation in CalPERS is governed by State law and CalPERS rules  The following are considered “withdrawing” from CalPERS:
 Exclude new hires from CalPERS & giving them a different pension  Stop accruing benefits for current employees
 “Withdrawal” from CalPERS:
 Treated as plan termination
 Liability increased for conservative investments
 Liability increased for future demographic fluctuations  Liability must be funded immediately by withdrawing agency  Otherwise, retiree benefits are cut

June 9, 2023 86

LEAVING CALPERS
CalPERS Termination Estimates on June 30, 2021 (Amounts in Millions) Ongoing Plan Termination Basis
Discount Rate 6.80% 1.00% 2.25%
Miscellaneous
Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 62.5 $ 127.6 $ 109.5
Assets 47.8 47.8 47.8
Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 14.7 79.8 61.7
Funded Ratio 76.5% 37.4% 43.6%
Safety
Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 81.3 $ 181.5 $ 152.3
Assets 56.8 56.8 56.8
Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 24.5 124.7 95.5
Funded Ratio 69.9% 31.3% 37.3%
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 87

PEPRA COST SHARING
 Target of 50% of total normal cost paid by all employees  PEPRA members must pay greater of 50% of total normal cost or bargained amount if higher
 Employer cannot pay any part of PEPRA member required employee contributions
 Employer may impose current employees pay 50% of total normal cost (limited to 8% of pay for Miscellaneous and 12% for Safety) if not agreed through collective bargaining
 Miscellaneous Plan 2023/24:

Classic Members New Members
Tier 1
2%@55 FAE1
PEPRA
2%@62 FAE3
 Employer Normal Cost 12.5% 7.68%
 Member Normal Cost 6.9% 7.75%
 Total Normal Cost 19.4% 15.43%
 50% Target 9.7% 7.72%

June 9, 2023 88

PEPRA COST SHARING
 Safety Plan 2023/24:

Classic Members New Members
Tier 1
3%@50 FAE1
PEPRA

2.7%@57 FAE3
 Employer Normal Cost 27.1% 13.54%
 Member Normal Cost 9.0% 13.75%
 Total Normal Cost 36.1% 27.29%
 50% Target 18.1% 13.65%
 PEPRA Member Contributions:
2022/23 2023/24
Group
Total
NC
(Basis)
Member
Rate
Total
Normal
Cost Change
Member
Rate Method
Miscellaneous 13.74% 6.75% 15.43% 1.7% 7.75% PEPRA
Members
Safety 26.04% 13.00% 27.29% 1.2% 13.75% PEPRA
Members
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 89
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
 Can only be used to:
 Reimburse City for CalPERS contributions
 Make payments directly to CalPERS
 Investments significantly less restricted than City investment funds  Fiduciary rules govern Trust investments
 Usually, designed for long term returns
 Assets don’t count for GASB accounting
 Are considered Employer assets
 Over 100 trusts established, mostly since 2015
 Trust providers: PARS, PFM, Keenan
 California Employers’ Pension Prefunding Trust (CEPPT) effective July 2019
 Strategy 1: 48% stocks / 52% bonds
 Strategy 2: 22% stocks / 78% bonds

June 9, 2023 90
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
 More flexibility than paying CalPERS directly
 City decides if and when and how much money to put into Trust  City decides if and when and how much to withdraw to pay CalPERS or reimburse Agency
 Funding strategies typically focus on
 Reducing the unfunded liability
 Fund enough to make total CalPERS UAL = 0
 Make PEPRA required payments from Trust when overfunded  Stabilizing contribution rates
 Mitigate expected contribution rates to better manage budget  Combination
 Use funds for rate stabilization/budget predictability  Target increasing fund balance to pay off UAL sooner

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 91
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
 Consider:
 How much can you put into Trust?
 Initial seed money?
 Additional amounts in future years?
 When do you take money out?
 Target budget rate?
 Year target budget rate kicks in?
 Before or after CalPERS rate exceeds budgeted rate?

June 9, 2023 92
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Supplemental Trust vs. CalPERS
Supplemental Trust CalPERS
 Flexible  Locked In
 Likely lower long-term return  Likely higher long-term return  Investment strategy choice  No investment choice
 Does not reduce net pension
liability for GASB reporting
 Reduces net pension liability for
GASB reporting
 More visible  More restricted

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 93
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration
Supplemental Trust Assumptions
Miscellaneous Safety
Contributions
 Initial Contribution at 6/30/23 $200,000 $300,000
 Additional Contributions28 2.5% of Payroll 4.0% of Payroll (2023/24 to 2026/27)
Trust Earnings 5.0% 5.0%

28 For 2023/24 this is approximately $144,000 for Miscellaneous and $104,000 for Safety.

June 9, 2023 94
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration
Projected Contribution Targets/Savings
Miscellaneous Safety
Target
 City’s Target Contribution Rate 44.4% 135.7%
 1st Year of Trust Withdrawals 2028/29 2029/30
 Last Year of Trust Withdrawals 2035/36 2034/35
Savings
 Total $405,000 $360,000
 Present Value of Savings
(3% discount rate) 147,000 128,000

PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 95
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Miscellaneous

June 9, 2023 96
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Miscellaneous
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 97
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Miscellaneous
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Supplemental Trust Balance ($000s)
50th Percentile

June 9, 2023 98
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 99
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety

June 9, 2023 100
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Supplemental Trust Balance ($000s)
50th Percentile
PGCC 6-21-23

June 9, 2023 101

ACTUARIAL CERTIFICATION
This report presents analysis of the City of Pacific Grove ’s CalPERS pension plans. The purpose of this report is to provide the City:
 Historical perspective on the plan investment returns, assets, funded status and contributions.  Projections of likely future contributions and the impact of investment volatility The calculations and projections in this report are based on information contained in the City’s June 30, 2021 and earlier CalPERS actuarial valuation reports. We reviewed this information for reasonableness, but do not make any representation on the accuracy of the CalPERS reports.

Future investment returns and volatility are based on Foster & Foster Capital Market model which results in long term returns summarized on pages 25 and 55.

Future results may differ from our projections due to differences in actual experience as well as changes in plan provisions, CalPERS actuarial assumptions or methodology. Other than variations in investment return, this study does not analyze these.

To the best of our knowledge, this report is complete and accurate and has been conducted using generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. As members of the American Academy of Actuaries meeting the Academy Qualification Standards, we certify the actuarial results and opinions herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug Pryor, ASA, EA, MAAA
Foster & Foster, Inc.

DRAFT
Bianca Lin, FSA, EA, MAAA
Foster & Foster, Inc.

DRAFT
PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 E

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Purple Pipe Feasibility Study
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive Report and Provide Direction.

2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove (City) constructed the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (LWP) and completed construction in 2017. The primary purpose of the project was to produce and distribute high quality recycled water to replace potable water, previously used for irrigation purposes. The LWP consisted of the construction of a sewer diversion structure, a 0.25 million gallons per day satellite recycled water treatment plant, pump station, force main pipeline, approximately 0.50 miles (2,800 linear feet (LF)) of 8-inch pipeline to convey recycled water to existing irrigation systems, connections to two public restrooms for toilet flushing, and onsite retrofits required for the use of recycled water.

The project can serve up to 125 acre-feet per year of recycled water primarily to the Pacific Grove Golf Links, Point Pinos Lighthouse and El Carmelo Cemetery. The predominant use of recycled water is for landscape irrigation.

Historically, the LWP has not maximized its production, producing less than 125-acre feet annually.

Not reaching the LWP capacity, has granted the potential for expansion of our distribution system of recycled water, though there are constraints and cost associated with expansion.

Through the City’s FY22/23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council requested that Public Works investigate and prepare a report to determine the potential feasibility of expanding the LWP to areas that are available for irrigation. The attached technical memorandum (Attachment 1) investigates the feasibility of extending recycled water supply to Perkins Park, Lover’s Point, and Caledonia Parks from the LWP.

The technical memo (memo) evaluates the availability of the recycled water demand to expand to the three parks, construction costs associated with expansion to the parks, and wastewater flows that serve the LWP.

Recycled Water Demand for Expansion:

PGCC 6-21-23

Recycled Water Demand for Expansion:

The three parks under evaluation for recycled water to be used for irrigation purposes are Caledonia, Lovers Point and Perkins Parks. These parks are located near the eastern end of the front nine holes of the Pacific Grove Golf Course where two potential connection points for the park expansion could occur (near the 7th and 6th tees of the golf course). The chart below shows the average historic water use for the parks. These figures illustrate that the annual irrigation use is minimal.

Location/Park Annual Average in gallons Annual Average in Acre Feet Caledonia 387,762 1.19
Lovers Point 713,613 2.19
Perkins Park 498,552** 1.53
* Average for years between 2016-2022
** Calculation is for 4 of the 5 meters at the park. The 5th meter has minimal use.

Construction Cost for Expansion:

Over the last few years construction cost have escalated quickly. To install a delivery pipeline costs would range between $140 -$250 per linear foot, depending on location (green space vs. Roadway) Location/Park Total length of Pipe Total Installation Cost Caledonia 700 LF $229,000
Lovers Point 1,480 LF $594,000
Perkins Park 2,555 $666,000
*Includes design, engineering, permitting, pipeline installation and connections points.

For comparison, installing and delivering recycled water to all 3 parks would cost about $16,000 per acre foot. Current costs for the use and delivery of potable water at the parks is approximately $7,500 per acre-foot, significantly more cost-effective.

Wastewater Flows:

The LWP was designed and constructed to produce up to 125 Acre Feet of recycled water annually.

The LWP operator has reported that during the early morning hours (1 AM to 6 AM) the flow in the sewer does not appear to be sufficient to maintain operation of the LWP at its design capacity. The City conducted flow testing in our main sewer trunk line where the sewer water is diverted for treatment. 2022 flow testing has determined that there is 10% more flow in the line compared to testing that was conducted in 2016, but flow between 2 am and 6 am is less than the minimum inflow required to produce during these hours. This is resulting in the plant not maximizing production and barley being able to produce enough recycled water for the current users, the golf course and cemetery.

Ultimately, the current plant inflow (which is the raw wastewater received to the plant) is not sufficient to produce reclaimed water to these additional three parks.

PGCC 6-21-23