Pacific Grove City Council
June 21, 2023

Takeaways and Recommendation
Usage of potable water is not substantially high at these locations Cost of installation and delivery of reclaimed/non-potable water is significantly more costly than the current use of potable water
The LWP does not currently have enough inflow to allow expansion to these three sites Although the use of reclaimed water provides environmental benefits, the plant produced enough inflow to support these additional locations; even if the inflow was at a rate to support expansion, the return on investment would not be actualized for over 30 years Staff recommends not proceeding with the expansion of reclaimed water delivery from the LWP to the three above mentioned parks.

OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact by receiving this report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Feasibility Study
PGCC 6-21-23

700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 360, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 P: 925.476.4944
bowman.com
Technical Memorandum
Executive Summary
Residents and members of the City Council have requested that the Public Works Department investigate and prepare this report. The purpose of this report is to determine the potential feasibility of expanding the Recycled Water (RW) land areas that are available for irrigation. This Technical Memorandum investigates the feasibility extending RW supply to Perkins, Lover’s Point and Caledonia parks from the Local Water Project (Water Reclamation Plant (WRP)). The background and purpose of this memorandum is discussed in Section 1. Section 2 provides the water demand history of each park.

Seven years of water use data at the parks was examined.

The production of recycled water at the Local Water Project was examined to determine operational changes required for its expansion. Expansion of the irrigation system beyond the golf course requires that the Water Reclamation Plant produce an adequate supply of RW. The WRP operator has reported that during the early morning hours (1 AM to 6 AM) the flow in the sewer does not appear to have sufficient flow to maintain operation of the WRP at its design capacity. This report further recommends that the WRP be reviewed to determine the range of it’s flow capacity. In order to increase the daily production of reclaimed water and most importantly reduce the reliance on reclaimed water, ensuring that we are utilizing the plant’s potential for treating low flows and peaking the capacity during high flow periods will be vital for ensuring that the maximum potential for reclaiming water is reached and the plant’s downtime is minimized during the early morning hours.

The three wastewater flow studies and recommendations for a future flow study are provided in Section

3. An evaluation of wastewater believed to be passing through the WRP diversion structure was conducted. Flow not pumped to the WRP was monitored downstream of the diversion in the Asilomar Blvd sewer entering at MH 980. The flow balance at the diversion structure conducted during November 2022 was inconclusive. The overall flow has increased by 10% in comparison to the flow in 2016.

However, the flow patterns have changed in terms of hourly values, total average daily flows, and the ratios of the minimum and maximum to the average.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Section 4 includes an analysis of piping alternatives for delivering RW to the three parks and the estimated costs for installation of the recycled water delivery pipelines and connection to the existing irrigation systems. The proposed pipeline to serve Lover’s Point would be 4-inch diameter, and the pipeline to Caledonia Park would be 3-inch. With Perkins Park being 1.2 miles long it was determined that the minimal water requirements in the farthest western portion of the park would not justify costs of a RW pipeline. Two alternative RW pipeline alignments were developed to serve the remainder of the parks.

The cost estimate in Section 4 provides six different combinations of parks and pipeline alternative configurations. Most of the pipeline segments would be constructed in the parks. Sections 5 and 6 provide a brief overview of the environmental and permitting requirements of the proposed expansion.

Section 7 provides the Recommendations for the expansion based on this investigation of its feasibility.

Appendix A provides additional financial review of the proposed project alternatives.

To obtain enough water for the expansion of the WRP, further investigations and adjustment will be required. It is recommended that sewer flow be measured during the July or August period when the irrigation demands are at a maximum and the WRP is operating at its maximum capacity.

1.0 PURPOSE STATEMENT
The purpose of this project is to determine if conversion from potable to recycled water for irrigation purposes can be feasibly constructed for the Caledonia, Lovers Point and Perkins Parks. The source of water would be the Local Water Project Facility that provides recycled water to the Golf Course, Point Pinos Light House and the Cemetery. The parks and Golf Course distribution connection point are shown on Figure 1-1. Pacific Grove constructed its Local Water Project to convert an independent, sustainable and drought resistant irrigation water supply of its golf course and cemetery from potable to recycled water. That project was developed in part to evidence the City’s commitment to potable water savings.

The City of Pacific Grove is committed to the development and operation of the Local Water Project. For many years, the City envisioned the development of a recycled water supply for the irrigation of its Municipal Golf Links, El Carmelo Cemetery and other public landscaping. In addition, the City has developed facilities to capture first flush storm water from its storm drains for the protection of discharges to the environment. The City is committed to the management and use of water from storm water, and dry weather water supplies as a precursor to development of new water supplies.

This commitment to developing recycled water is formally documented in the City’s General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and in the resolutions of several City Councils. The vision for the proposed project has been supported by the citizens of the City and has been refined in studies and engineering investigations. This commitment demonstrates the City’s dedication to the conservation of its valuable potable water PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
resources, the recognition of the regional importance for water conservation, and the desire to ensure safe and economical municipal operations.

Figure 1-1 Recycled Water Expansion Locations
The City’s General Plan articulates as policy its goal to “Endeavor to ensure an adequate water supply for the City’s future needs”. The City’s General Plan Conservation Element notes that “recent studies have concluded that residents of Pacific Grove cannot assume a complacent attitude toward the water resources of the area,” and recommends that the feasibility of the use of recycled water for various uses (including irrigation of various public properties such as the Municipal Golf Course) be pursued by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions.

City residents and members of the City Council have requested that the Public Works Department investigate and prepare a report on this potential expansion of the recycled water expansion project.

Conversion from potable to recycled water for irrigation might have a potentially significant cost savings and would be consistent to the resource conservation ethic and practice throughout the Monterey Peninsula by the logical expansion and growth of the recycled water service area. Already, the City has expanded its recycled water distribution area to replace potable with recycled water at the Point Pinos PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Lighthouse grounds. The further expansion of the City’s recycled water (RW) distribution system would serve as an additional model for the system growth and expansion.

A market Study for recycled water demand was prepared as a part of the City’s Facility Plan Report for the local Water Project (June 2014). Many additional recycled water use locations were identified.

2.0 RECYCLED WATER DEMAND
Cal Am provided seven years of potable water user data for the Caledonia, Lovers Point and Perkins Park. The potable meters supply drinking fountains, bathrooms, and irrigation systems. The water use is reported in gallons for each billing period. No information exists on the daily water demands.

Irrigation demand is estimated as the historical total potable water use assuming that the potable drinking water fountains and bathroom demands are small in comparison to the irrigation requirement.

In this Technical Memorandum (TM), “monthly water use” is the amount of water used during the reported billing period and not a calendar month.

The City has identified the following three parks that are being considered to convert from potable supply to recycled water supply:
• Caledonia Park
• Lovers Point Park
• Perkins Parks
The monthly water use at Caledonia Park from 2016 through 2022 is tabulated in Table 2-1 and graphically presented as Figure 2-1. The graphs of historical water use illustrate the monthly water variations identifies the peak months that affect the required hydraulic capacities of the transmission piping. Similar data for the Lover’s Point and Perkins Parks are presented in Figures 2-2 and 2-3 and Tables 2-2 and 2-3.

Perkins Park irrigation system supplies potable water through five water meters (Figure 2-4). Table 2-3 (Total Monthly Historical) Flow is based on providing recycled water to four of the five existing meter locations. The farthest west meter, located at 1051 Ocean View Boulevard, averaged irrigation demand of only 0.013 AFY which averages less than 12 gallons per day. This low water demand does not justify conversion to recycled water at this far west location (identified as Meter E in Figure 2-4).

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-1 Caledonia Park Historical Water Use (gallons/month unless otherwise noted) Month 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
January 3,366 3,740 3,291 4,000 3,400 3,500 3,600
February 4,413 3,216 5,310 3,900 3,400 4,100 4,500
March 4,413 3,814 19,896 3,700 17,400 4,900 32,400
April 5,385 5,759 4,862 5,900 5,100 24,900 35,700
May 21,542 18,700 8,751 15,000 18,800 131,900 32,300
June 59,840 52,285 35,604 51,300 79,700 97,300 46,800
July 62,906 59,914 45,104 45,100 113,400 90,600 57,500
August 56,848 42,411 73,528 49,500 118,000 58,900 33,230 September 55,800 29,172 67,602 46,800 115,900 5,600 33,230 October 48,246 26,105 47,600 41,900 66,900 37,600 33,230 November 7,106 27,227 17,500 48,700 68,200 16,000 200
December 4,936 4,936 4,800 23,100 20,900 5,000 --
Total -gal/yr 336,817 279,296 335,866 340,919 633,120 482,321 314,712 Total - AFY 1.03 0.86 1.03 1.05 1.94 1.48 0.97
Average Annual Use = 1.19 AFY for the period 2016 - 2022 Figure 2-1 Caledonia Park Historical Water Use
PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-2 Lovers Point Park Historical Water Use
Month 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
January 74 74 0 0 0 23,600 0
February 0 0 13,688 0 0 100 0
March 74 0 33,884 0 34,600 0 76,000
April 12,940 0 0 0 6,100 58,900 106,500
May 69,863 58,343 131,274 70,100 32,900 138,200 58,300
June 87,067 170,544 142,718 43,700 93,600 132,800 129,900 July 112,424 167,178 87,665 130,400 78,100 118,700 135,700 August 81,980 144,588 147,150 147,200 144,200 61,500 101,300 September 121,026 88,638 147,150 113,800 75,000 129,300 101,300 October 120,128 56,324 56,400 67,100 44,400 86,900 101,300 November 0 74,500 86,400 43,600 36,500 18,400 200
December 0 0 0 0 29,500 100 --
Total -gal/yr 607,592 762,206 848,347 617,919 576,920 770,521 812,522 Total - AFY 1.86 2.34 2.60 1.90 1.77 2.36 2.49
Average Annual Use = 2.19 AFY for the period 2016 - 2022 PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 2-2 Lovers Point Park Historical Water Use
PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-3 Total Monthly Historical Flow – Perkins Park Meters A, B, C, and D a/ Month 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
January 0 0 149 0 15,824 4,800 0
February 111 0 0 0 11,100 0 10,627
March 0 0 0 0 12,297 0 57,345
April 0 0 0 6,974 0 23,603 69,194
May 0 0 0 113,967 38,834 71,579 50,914
June 0 0 43,084 81,600 88,831 90,935 59,824
July 27,973 0 56,794 95,427 124,015 87,262 62,516
August 48,693 28,011 58,725 167,983 130,520 53,910 72,825 September 74,051 19,747 49,022 180,351 146,912 64,848 95,264 October 40,839 39,418 72,656 180,862 157,794 65,912 28,462 November 0 25,879 9,190 130,324 120,108 9,600 112
December 0 523 4,421 51,936 42,818 74 --
Total -gal/yr 193,682 115,595 296,058 1,011,443 891,073 474,544 509,105 Total - AFY 0.59 0.35 0.91 3.10 2.73 1.46 1.56
a/ See Figure 2-4 for Meter locations.

Average Annual Use = 1.53 AFY for the period 2016 - 2022 PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 2-3 Perkins Park Historical Water Use
Figure 2-4 Perkins Park Water Meter Locations
The average and maximum monthly demands are presented in Table 2-4 for the three parks. The reclamation treatment system should have the capacity to supply all the irrigation water required during the maximum irrigation periods.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-4 Average and Maximum Monthly Demands
Location Average Annual
Water Use –
AFY b/
Maximum Water
Demand –
gallons/month a/
Average Daily Flow
During Peak Month
gallons/day
Caledonia Park 1.19 132,000 4,400
Lovers Point Park 2.19 170,000 5,667
Perkins Park 1.53 180,000 6,000
a/
Based on maximum month demand in Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 b/
Average for period 2016 – 2022

3.0 RECYCLED WATER SUFFICIENCY
During the last few years of the operation of the Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP), there are periods when the plant does not provide sufficient recycled water to meet the irrigation demands for the Golf Course. Potable water is purchased to make up the deficiency in supply. Expansion of the irrigation system beyond the golf course requires that the WRP produce an adequate supply of recycled water. The WRP operator has reported that during the early morning hours (1 AM to 6 AM) the flow in the sewer does not have sufficient wastewater volume to maintain operation of the plant at its design capacity. The objectives for this section are to:
• summarize the flow rates in the sewer relative to the required WRP inflow, • review current diversion structure flow monitoring and compare with historical flow rates, and • summarize recent potable water use to make up WRP deficiencies.

3.1 Availability of Wastewater Flow into the Diversion Manhole A diversion structure located adjacent to Manhole 801A (MH 801A) intercepts wastewater in the Asilomar Blvd sewer and pumps it to the WRP.

Three wastewater flow monitoring studies of the sewers supplying the diversion structure that provides wastewater to the WRP were conducted:

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
i) Manhole 803 by Wallace Group, 2/2/2013 – 4/10/2013 (flow monitoring - Utility Systems, Science and Software)1,
ii) Manhole 801 by PERC, 2/19/2016 – 3/3/2016 (flow monitoring - Infrastructure Engineering Corporation), and
iii) Manholes 801 and 980 at Shell and Asilomar, 2022.
a/ Source: Sewer Collection System Master Plan 2014 May 2014 by Wallace Group The diversion location and the manholes where the studies were conducted are provided on Figure 3-1.

The 2022, third round monitored flows upstream (MH 801) and downstream MH 980) of the diversion structure. The average, peak and minimum flow rates are summarized in Table 3-1 for the three rounds of flow monitoring near the diversion location.

Figure 3-1 Monitoring Manhole Locations
1 Source: Sewer Collection System Master Plan 2014 May 2014 by Wallace Group PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 3-1 Summary of the Three Rounds of Flow Monitoring Round of Flow Monitoring Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Manhole Location MH 803 MH 801 MH 801 MH 980
Year Monitored 2013 2016 2022 2022
Monitoring Period 2/2 –
4/10/2013
2/19 –
3/3/16
11/18 –
12/2/22
11/18 –
12/2/22
Average Daily Flow - gpd 606,500 610,000 671,000 448,000 Base WW Flow – gpd 491,300
Infiltration - gpd 115,200
Maximum Flow – gpd 1,065,000 1,470,000 1,013,000 825,000 Minimum Flow - gpd 173,000 247,000 226,000 160,000
Instantaneous Minimum -
gpd
247,000 130,000 0
Future Average Daily Flow –
gpd
694,800
- - - - - -
The lack of adequate wastewater flow to the WRP is unknown and may be due to low sewer flow rates or bypass of flows around the diversion. The 2022 flow monitoring (Round 3) was conducted in late November after a dry period without rainfall which increases the potential for infiltration. The adequacy of the available wastewater flow during the design was addressed in the 2016 Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the City of Pacific Grove’s Local Water Project. (Pacific Advanced Civil Engineering, Inc.).

The average daily flow during the study was 0.61 MGD. The flow exhibited a diurnal pattern, with a minimum flow of 0.25 MGD and a maximum flow of 1.47 MGD.

The flow data -- -- shows that there is sufficient flow in the sewer to provide the Design Flow of 0.25 MGD without significant equalization volume. There was only one instance when flow in the sewer dipped below the Design Flow, and it was only slightly under at 0.247 MGD. The ability of the plant to operate at Maximum Design Flow to supplement periods below the average daily flow and the effluent storage volume will allow the plant to produce Design Flow based on a processing time of 24 hours.

Figure 3-2 from the 2016 BODR illustrates the average weekday and weekend flows observed during the monitoring period of 2/19/16 to 3/3/16. The note “Minimum Flow without Infiltration” has been added to the original hydrograph to highlight the potential impact of infiltration. The loss of infiltration during the dry season would reduce the amount of flow available to below the amount required for producing the 0.25 MGD WRP capacity.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-2 Manhole 801 Flow rate February 2016
Figure 3-3 presents the average daily flows measured in November 2022. Note that these are the flows for each 15-minute period averaged over 4-weekend days and 10 weekdays. These are averages and for each period meaning that there will be some values greater and some greater lower than the graphed values.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3- 3 Manhole 801 Flow Rate: November 2022
Figure 3-4 compares the 2016 and 2022 weekday averages. The overall average weekly flow increased from 0.610 MGD in 2016 to 0.671 MGD in 2022 representing a 10% increase. The flow patterns differ significantly in terms of hourly values, total average daily flows, and the ratios of the minimum and maximum to the average.

The minimum flows for 2022 are less than required to produce 0.25 MGD of recycled water. The recycled product water produced by the MBR process used at the WRP is about 94 to 96% of the plant inflow. In addition, a small portion of the recycled water is used for plant housekeeping. Overall, this equates to a requirement of of 0. 27 to 0.28 MGD of inflow for production of the 0.25 MGD design capacity of the RWP.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-4 Comparison of 2016 and 2022 Weekday Hydrographs Figures 3-5 and 3-6 compare the hydrographs for weekends and the overall week, respectively.

Figure 3-5 Comparison of 2016 and 2022 Weekend Hydrographs PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-6 Comparison of 2016 and 2022 Overall Week Average Hydrographs Of particular concern are the flows less than the minimum required for operation of the WRP at its design flow rate. Figure 3-7 illustrates that 20% of the time during the 2022 monitoring event, the diversion structure inflows at MH 801 were less than the required 0.27 MGD (dotted red line). The flow distribution is based on the 1,360 flow measurements taken between 11/18/2022 and 12/2/2022.

Figure 3-7 Distribution of Diversion Structure Inflow Rates (11/18/2022 – 12/2/2022) PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
While there has been a 10% increase in overall average flows during the monitoring periods, the decrease in the minimum flows to less than required for production of 0.25 MGD recycled water is the primary concern. The flow increase is consistent with the 15% projected future flow increase presented in the May 2014 Sewer Collection System Master Plan prepared by the Wallace Group.

The WRP is programmed to produce 0.25 MGD constantly over 24-hours and the system will automatically shut down if there is insufficient feedwater.

The causes of the differences in the hydrographs for 2016 and 2017 have not been identified. A reduction in infiltration during the 2022 monitoring relative to the February 2016 monitoring would explain the lower 2022 minimum flow rates. However, with decreased infiltration, one would not expect the total flow to increase without a significant increase in wastewater generation (population increase, new commercial establishments, etc.).

Availability of Flow in Asilomar Sewer

3.1.1Conclusion on Available Flow
• Assuming that 2022 MH 801 flow rates are valid, the total flow has increased by approximately 10% since the 2013 and 2016 measurements.
• The 2022 flow appears to have less infiltration (minimum flow relative to average). • The lower 2022 minimum flow occurring between 2 and 6 AM is frequently less than the minimum inflow required for the WRP to produce its 0.25 MGD design capacity.

3.1.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that the sewer flow should be measured during the July or August period when the irrigation demands are maximum and the WRP is operating at its maximum capacity. This flow study should be part of the diversion structure evaluation recommended in the next section. 3-2 Diversion Structure Performance
A second objective of the 2022 flow monitoring is to obtain information on the effectiveness of the diversion structure. If all the wastewater flowing through MH 801 cannot be captured and pumped to the WRP, then the plant downtime will be greater than indicated in Figure 3-7. In order to evaluate the passing of wastewater through the diversion structure, the flow not pumped to the WRP was monitored at MH 980. The flow meter downstream of the diversion was in the Asilomar Blvd sewer entering MH 980. The hydrographs for the average weekdays and average weekend days monitored at the inflow to MH 980 in 2022 are illustrated in Figure 3-8.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-8 2022 Wastewater Flows into Manhole 980 Downstream of Diversion Manhole The daily flows in MH 801 and MH 980 are compared in Figures 3-9a and 3-9b for the first and second weeks of the monitoring. The flow differences between the MH 801 and MH 980 are an indication of the amount of wastewater diverted to the WRP. The vertical time lines on the graphs are at midnight or the zero hour of the indicated day of the week. Typically, the “blue” and “red” lines in Figures 3-9 and b coincide between 2 and 5 am indicating that the WRP in not in operation and that all MH 801 flow bypasses the diversion and enters MH 980. The flow of WRP wastewater (WAS) back into the sewer system occurs between MH 801 and MH 980 and contributes to the flows monitored at MH 980. The impacts of the WRP wastewater have not been quantified.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-9a Comparison of Flows Upstream and Downstream of the Diversion (Week 1) Figure 3-9b Comparison of Flows Upstream and Downstream of the Diversion (Week 2) The MH 801 peak of 1.65 MGD on Thursday December 1, 2022 (Week 2) for reflects a 0.48 rainfall event.

There was no rain for several months prior to the flow monitoring.

To evaluate the diversion structure performance, the differences in the MH 801 and MH 980 flow rates were compared with the metered flow into the WRP. The daily influent flows to the WRP are reported in the Operator’s Daily Round reports provided to Bowman as Excel files. The daily manhole flows and WRF inflows are summarized for the flow monitoring period in Table 3-2. Slight differences will be due to a difference in reporting periods for the data. The daily manhole flows are for the 24-hour period midnight to midnight while the WRF inflow is for the 24-hour period 7:30 AM to 7:29 AM.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 3-2 Water Balance
Date
MH 801
Inflow
MGD
MH 980
Inflow
MGD
Flow Difference:

MH 801 minus
MH 980 - MGD
Plant Inflow
Meter MGD
Unexplained
Flow
Difference
MGD

A B C D E
11/18/22 0.781 0.490 0.292 0.0385 0.253
11/19/22 0.642 0.412 0.230 0.0677 0.162
11/20/22 0.675 0.435 0.241 0.0388 0.202
11/21/22 0.673 0.452 0.221 0.1113 0.110
11/22/22 0.658 0.433 0.225 0.1039 0.121
11/23/22 0.687 0.335 0.352 0.123 0.229
11/24/22 0.655 0.357 0.298 0.0477 0.250
11/25/22 0.672 0.390 0.281 0.0492 0.232
11/26/22 0.697 0.402 0.295 0.0487 0.246
11/27/22 0.699 0.341 0.358 0.0908 0.267
11/28/22 0.686 0.411 0.275 0.0483 0.226
11/29/22 0.682 0.468 0.214 0.0392 0.175
11/30/22 0.672 0.491 0.182 0.0002 0.181
12/1/22 0.702 0.488 0.214 0.0001 0.214
Totals MG 9.58 5.91 3.68 0.81 2.87
The flow between MH 801 and MH 980 do not appear to balance. It was assumed that the outflows from MH 801 would equal the Alisomar inflow to MH 980 (Column B) plus the inflow to the WRF (column D). The total of MH 980 plus WRP Inflow during the monitoring period is 3.69 MG + 0.81 MG =

4.50 MG. The inflow to MH 801 is 9.58 MG. There is an unexplained difference of 5.05 MG (9.58 MG minus 4.50 MG).

3.2.1 Diversion Structure Performance
Findings/Conclusions: The flow balance at the diversion structure measured between November 18 and December 2, 2022 was inconclusive. There appears to have been a problem with one of the flow meters in either MH 801 or MH 980. Given that the 2022 flow data at MH 801 is generally consistent with the February 2016 flow measurements, it appears that total flows are sufficient for expansion of the reclaimed water irrigation system if the WRP can be modified to treat the variable inflow.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Recommendations:
• Given that it has been reported the available flows at the diversion are insufficient to operate the WRP at its design capacity, it is recommended that the flow balance study of the diversion structure be repeated during the high irrigation season. The WRF is operating at its maximum capacity during the July – August period. The information is needed to determine if the existing WRP can operate 24-hours per day.
• The flow study should focus on the period between 2 AM and 6 AM when sewer flows are at their minimum.
• Prior to flow monitoring, the flows in and out of the Diversion MH 801A should be observed during high and low flow periods. At the same time, the flows into MH 980 should be observed to confirm that the diversion is functioning. If the plant is operating around the clock, there should be zero or minimum flow into MH 980 between 2 and 6 AM. • During flow studies, a recorder should be installed on the diversion pump flow meter to record the flow rates. The total daily flow used in the analysis reported herein will not allow detailed analysis of the sewer flow data.
• The time of day and flow rates of WAS discharges to the sewer should be recorded as the WAS enters the Asilomar sewer between the Diversion manhole (801A) and the downstream MH 980. • The flow study should be coordinated with the WRP operations staff and hourly production data be made available.

3.3 Potable Water Addition to Recycled Water System
At times, the WRP does not produce enough recycled water to meet the irrigation water demand and potable water is used to supplement the irrigation supply. This section provides limited historical information on the quantity and season of potable water supplemental use. An analysis of the reasons for inadequate WRP recycled water production is outside the scope of this project. Including supplemental potable water into the analysis emphasizes the importance of increasing WRP reclaimed water production should be considered before expanding the reclaimed water irrigation system.

Figure 3-10 illustrates the July 2022 simple water balance the WRP’s recycled water storage and delivery system. During this period over 25% of the distributed recycled water was potable. The information is based on the Monthly Asset Management Report prepared by PERC, the operator of the facility. It is noted that July used the largest supplemental volume of potable water in 2022 as illustrated in Figure 3-

11. The 2022 daily potable water use is illustrated in Figure 3-12.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-10 Water Balance July 2022
Figure 3-11 Monthly Supplemental Potable Water Use 2022 The 2022 daily potable water addition to the WRP product to operating storage is illustrated in Figure 3-

12. The potable water additions during February and March may have been due to WRP maintenance or inability to produce adequate supply of reclaimed water.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-12 Daily Supplemental Potable Water Use 2022
Similar historical supplemental potable use for 2019 is illustrated in Figures 3-13 and 3-14. As can be seen in these figures, significant purchases of potable water have occurred even in the early spring before peak irrigation water demands would be experienced.

Figure 3-13 Monthly Supplemental Potable Water Use 2019 Figure 3-14 Daily Supplemental Potable Water Use 2019
PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
From the 2016 Flow Monitoring Report
Figure 3-15 summarized the daily recycled water production based on the MBR net filtrate flow meters.

This is a more accurate indicator of plant performance than the “effluent meter” which measures the flow pumped out of the storage tanks. The “effluent meter” includes the potable water added to the recycled water tanks to meet the irrigation demands. This figure illustrates that the reclaimed water production for 2022 is well below its capacity of 240,000 gallons per day. There were also many days where the plant had zero production or very low production. Finding ways operate at low flow conditions and increasing the peak flow capacity during high flow periods would likely result in higher production and less purchasing of potable water.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 3-15 Daily Recycled Water Production
In 2022, The total recycled water delivered to the golf course, cemetery, lighthouse, and truck fill station was 114.5 AF. This value includes 15.8 AF of potable water. This is consistent with the net flow measured for the MBR membranes of 103.0 AF. The difference between the MBR membrane production plus the potable (103.0 +15.8 = 118.8 AF) and the total recycled (114.5 AF) is recycled water used for maintenance of the treatment plant and differences in meter accuracy.

3.3.1 Possible Actions to Increase Recycled Water Production The following provides information on possible actions the City may want to consider to minimize supplementing WRP production with potable water to meet current and future irrigation demands:

1. If there is insufficient sewage flow during early morning periods, determine if the plant can be programmed to operate both trains when there is adequate influent flow and then only operate a single train when the influent flow is limited. This could maximize recycled water production, by meeting the design capacity of the WRP.

2. Determine how much of the WRP membrane flows can be modulated from low flow production to high peak production. The feasibility of the current membrane system programming may need to be determined. The ability to have a more robust operating range will result in additional production of reclaimed water and result in a likely reduction on the reliance of using potable water for irrigation.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com

3. Determine if the current control system programming for the influent pumping system is maximized.

4. If the production rate of the WRF can be modulated, can additional membranes be installed in the “spare” positions in the membrane racks? The original design of the WRP was for having a capacity of 0.30 MGD (Table 2-1 from the PERC 2016 Basis of Design Report. Footnote 2 indicates that the membrane system has significant flexibility, even without the addition of additional membrane modules.) Determine if the capacity of the biological reactors limit the overall plant capacity.

5. Evaluate inflow equalization as an alternative to varying the production rates.

4.0 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS (PUMPING AND PIPELINES) In this section, the piping alternatives are identified for delivering RW to the three parks shown in Figure 1-1. Conceptual level pipeline lengths are provided for development of AACE International CLASS 4 Cost Estimates. Class 4 estimates are generally prepared using limited information with engineering typically at the 1% to 15% level. They are typically prepared for a variety of purposes including but not limited to strategic planning, project screening, alternative analysis, determination of feasibility, concept evaluation, and preliminary budget approval. Typically, accuracy for Class 4 estimates ranges from -15% to-30% on the low side and +20% to +50% on the high side.

The results developed and presented herein are for the purposes of concept evaluation, project screening, initial determination of project feasibility, and preliminary budget definition. Minimum field evaluations have been performed and no geotechnical and soil investigations will need to be conducted as a part of the project development.

The recycled water systems for the three parks are described in sections 4.2 and 4.3. The estimated preliminary cost for installation of the RW delivery pipelines and connection to the existing irrigation systems are presented in section 4.4.

4.1 Sources of Recycled Water
The three parks under evaluation for recycled water irrigation are located near the eastern end of the front nine holes of the Pacific Grove Golf Course. The front nine holes have an existing recycled water distribution system fed by a backbone loop of 6-inch and 4-inch diameter pipelines. Park irrigation recycled water (RW) would be taken from connections with the existing Golf Course irrigation system to minimize delivery costs. Two potential connection points for the park RW are near the 6th Tee and the 4 th green.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
The irrigation schedules for the golf course and the parks will require coordination given the limited hydraulic capacity of the existing golf course irrigation system. Development of a coordinated schedule is beyond the scope of the analysis presented herein.

4.2 Recycled Water Pipeline Sizing
The delivery design flow rate depends on the number of days per week that the parks are irrigated and the duration of the irrigation period. Using the average daily irrigation requirement during the peak demand month as presented in Table 2-4, the instantaneous or design irrigation flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for the Caledonia maximum month average flow of 4,400 gpd irrigated for 3 days per week and 3 hours per day as follows:

Flow Rate (gpm) = (Max Monthly 4,400 GPD) 𝑥
7 𝑑/𝑤
3 𝑑/𝑤
𝑥
24 ℎ/𝑑
3 ℎ/𝑑
𝑥
𝑑𝑎𝑦
1440 𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 57 gpm
Table 2-5 presents irrigation flow rates for a range of irrigation schedules for the Caledonia Park. Using this criteria, viable diameters for the transmission pipes supplying recycled water for Caledonia Park irrigation are identified in Table 2-6. As an example, if a 3-inch diameter transmission pipeline supplies Caledonia Park, the irrigation system during the maximum month could be irrigated 3 days per week for a minimum of 2 hours/day. If the park is irrigated only 2-days per week, the minimum period of 3-hours per day. The park operations staff can select the irrigation frequency and duration within these limits.

Based on the data presented in Table 2-6, it is recommended that the pipe supplying recycled water to Caledonia Park be 3-inch diameter or larger. If a one hour per day maximum irrigation period is required, a 4-inch diameter is recommended.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-5 Caledonia Park – Irrigation System Rates based on 4,500 gpd (average max month)
PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-6 Viable Irrigation Schedules for Caledonia Park Irrigation Schedule Viability a/
Days/week
Irrigated
Hours
Irrigated/ day
3-inch
Pipeline
4-inch
Pipeline
3 1 Viable
3 2 Viable Viable
3 3 Viable Viable
3 4 Viable Viable
2 1
2 2 Viable
2 3 Viable Viable
2 4 Viable Viable
a/ Viability is based on pipeline velocities less than 5.5 feet per second.

Tables 2-7 and 2-8 provide viable irrigation schedules for Lover’s Point Park and Perkins Park. Irrigation schedules should be coordinated with the irrigation schedules of the Golf Course and Cemetery given the available capacity of the irrigation pumping system at the Reclamation Plant site. Development of this schedule is outside the scope of this current study.

Table 2-7 Viable Irrigation Schedules for Lovers Point Park Irrigation Schedule Viability a/
Days/week
Irrigated
Hours
Irrigated/day
3-inch
Pipeline
4-inch
Pipeline
3 1
3 2 Viable Viable
3 3 Viable Viable
3 4 Viable Viable
2 1
2 2 Viable
2 3 Viable Viable
2 4 Viable Viable
a/
Viable is based on pipeline velocities less than 5.5 feet per second PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-8 Viable Irrigation Schedules for Perkins Park (A, B, C, D) Irrigation Schedule Viability
Days/week
Irrigated
Hours
Irrigated/ day
3-inch
Pipeline
4-inch
Pipeline
3 1
3 2 Viable Viable
3 3 Viable Viable
3 4 Viable Viable
2 1
2 2 Viable
2 3 Viable Viable
2 4 Viable Viable
a/ Viable is based on pipeline velocities less than 5.5 feet per second

4.3 Caledonia and Lover’s Point Parks
Caledonia Park is the closest to the Golf Course connection point as illustrated in Figure 4-1. In terms of alternative systems, it is possible to limit the expansion only to Caledonia Park (System 1), only to Lover’s Point Park (System 2), or to serve both parks (System 3). The pipeline routing minimizes construction in the streets which has a higher cost than construction in either the parks or the Golf Course. Cost estimates for these three systems are presented in Section 4-4.

Recycled water production and use in California are governed by SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) regulations and guidelines. Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 and Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) serve as the sources for regulations relating to recycled water production and use. Current regulations, including Title 22 and Title 17, are compiled by the DDW, in the publication California Health Laws Related to Recycled Water “The Purple Book” updated in 2009. RW pipelines would be constructed in accordance with the CCR. RW piping must have minimum separation from potable water pipelines.

RW would be connected to the parks’ existing irrigation systems. The existing connections to the downstream side of the existing water meters would be physically removed to eliminate the possibility of cross connections between the potable and RW systems. Provisions would be installed to maintain potable supply to the drinking fountains and restrooms. Cross-connection testing after construction PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
would be conducted in accordance with the CCR. The costs to meet the CCR requirements are included in the Section 4.4 estimates.

The proposed pipeline serving Lover’s Point would be 4-inch diameter, and the pipeline to Caledonia Park would be 3-inch. The irrigation demands and the basis of the pipe sizing are presented in Section 3.

Figure 4-1 Recycled Water Distribution System Serving Caledonia and Lover’s Point Parks

4.4 Perkins Park
Perkins Park is a linear 1.2-mile-long beachfront park along Ocean View Boulevard between Lover's Point Park and the tip of Point Pinos. Approximately 0.8 miles of the park is presently irrigated via five water meters illustrated in Figure 2-4. The western most meter (Meter E) reported an average water use of less the 4,500 gallons per year (average of 7 years, 2016-2022). This relatively small water use does not justify installation of a recycled water system. The systems evaluated would deliver RW to Perkin Meters A through D serving the eastern portions of the park.

Figure 4-3 illustrates a conceptual approach to integrate components of existing irrigation systems into a RW delivery piping system. The upper sketch (a) illustrates two potable water meters supplying PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
irrigation systems, each with four separate watering zones fed through conventional irrigation solenoid valves. In the lower sketch, the two irrigation systems are interconnected using portions of the existing piping along with sections of new pipelines. The integration minimizes construction of new pipelines.

Solenoid valves for several of the watering zones are relocated. In addition, a recycled water source is connected to the modified system and cables are installed between the relocated solenoids and the existing controllers. This concept is used in the two alternatives for serving Perkins Park with RW. The new pipelines integrated into the existing irrigation systems are estimated to have 3-inch diameters.

Field investigations of the existing irrigation systems will be required to determine the feasibility of conceptual approach for interconnecting the four irrigation systems to eliminate construction of a new RW supply pipeline for the length of Perkins Park.

Figure 4-3 Conceptual Approach
Two alternatives are defined for delivering RW to Perkins Park. Alternative A provides recycled water via Lover’s Point Park as illustrated in Figure 4-4. Sections of the pipe are constructed in pavement and are labeled P1 (shown as dotted red lines). Most of the pipelines are located in the park using the concepts presented in Figure 4-3 and are designated as P2 and shown as dashed white lines. For the P2 pipelines integrated with the existing irrigation systems, the costs for construction are based on 50% of the lengths illustrated in Figure 4-4. Supply of recycled water from Lover’s Point Park assumes that either System 2 or 3 as identified in Section 4-2 is constructed. The pipelines between Lover’s Point and Meter A is 4-inch diameter.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Perkins Park Alternative B, illustrated in Figure 4-5, connects to the Golf Course irrigation system near the 4th hole in the vicinity of Del Monte Boulevard. This alternative does not require serving Lover’s Point Park with recycled water.

Figure 4-4: Perkins Park Alternative A
PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 4-5: Perkins Park Alternative B

4.5 Costs of Alternative Systems
The Class 4 cost estimates for the systems described above are presented in Table 4-1. The bases of a Class 4 estimate are summarized in Table 4-2. The pipes are 3-inch and 4-inch diameter and unit costs for street construction and park/golf course construction are $250/foot and $140/foot, respectively.

Table 4-1 System Costs
1 2 3 4 5 6
Parameter Caledonia
Park
Lovers
Point
Only
Caledonia
& Lovers
Point
Parks
Perkins Park
o/ Alternative
A (via Lovers
Point)
Perkins
Park
Alternative
B (via Del
Monte)
All Three
Parks with
Perkins via
Lover's
Point
Connection to GC Irrigation
System $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 n/a $5,000 $5,000
Pipelines
Pipelines in Parks and GC
See Note
c/
See Note
e/
See Note
g/ See Note i/ See Note l/
Length feet 555 445 785 1780 1355
Cost per foot $140 $140 $140 $85 $85
Cost $77,700 $62,300 $109,900 $151,300 $115,175 $261,200 Pipelines in Streets
See Note
d/
See Note
f/
See Note
h/
See Note j/ See Note
m/
Length feet 145 1035 1155 775 1420
Cost per foot $250 $250 $250 $250 $250
Cost $36,250 $258,750 $288,750 $193,750 $355,000 $482,500 See Note k/ See Note k/
Adjustments $5,500 $5,500
Connection to Park Irrigation
System $7,500 $7,500 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $30,000
Title 22 Backflow Testing $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 $25,000 A) Construction Cost – total
above $131,000 $339,000 $429,000 $381,000 $505,000 $809,000 B) Engineering - Design &
Construction 20% of A) $26,000 $68,000 $86,000 $76,000 $101,000 $162,000 C) Permits, Legal,
Environmental 20% of A $26,000 $68,000 $86,000 $76,000 $101,000 $162,000 D) Subtotal (A+B+C) $183,000 $475,000 $601,000 $533,000 $707,000 $1,133,000 E) Contingency 25% of E $46,000 $119,000 $150,000 $133,000 $177,000 $283,000 F) Estimated Total Cost (D+E) $229,000 $594,000 $751,000 $666,000 $884,000 $1,416,000 PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Notes:

Table 4-2 Cost Estimate Qualifications
1 The cost estimate does not include an escalation allowance from the indicated pricing level to the unknown NTP.
2 Market Assumption: Desirable local project which is expected to attract competition and reasonable offers.
3 Owners are urged to budget towards the high range value pending the 60% design cost estimate.
4 The final contract drawings, specifications and bid schedule, specifically any addendums to contractors, were not available at time of the cost estimate's development 5 Cost estimate does not contain any allowances for owner required items or for force account work or police oversight
6 Cost estimate is not based on quoted costs for materials or equipment. 7 Preliminary construction schedule not provided; estimate assumes 1 month of preconstruction and a 2-3 months of field duration 8 Wage decision = TBD
9 Undefined environmental mitigations/landscaping and slope stability items are excluded 10 Unknown permitting, agency or Home Owners HOA mitigations are excluded 11 Work areas assumed to be available from 7am to 7pm M-F without constraint to the contractor
12 Pricing basis is Q4 2022
13 Assumed contracting strategy: conventional design/bid/build 14 Cost estimate assumes that all easements will be available and does not provide an allowance if shown easements are not available at time of construction 15 This OPCC is classified as a Class 4 cost estimate per AACE guidelines. Stated accuracy range = -30% to + 50%
16 Pricing assumes competitive market conditions at time of tender (+3 bidders/trade).

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
17 Special outside agency inspections not included.
5 CEQA Scoping
A discretionary Coastal Zone Development permit would be needed for the distribution pipeline installation for the parks that are location in the Coastal Zone. Since the parks are in the Coastal zone and will be new installation and ground disturbance it does not seem likely that the project would qualify and a Categorical Exemption to CEQA. Biological and cultural, surveys and hazardous material review of the construction footprint would confirm if an Exemption would be adequate for addressing CEQA. There would need to be a determination of the approach to construction to determine the need for a traffic control plan. If additional CEQA analysis is required, impacts would be temporary in nature the project would likely require an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). 6 REGULATORY REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS
Since the project would be reducing the use of potable water and supporting areas for public access in the coastal zone it should not be an issue to the California Coastal Commission that this project is approved by the City. It will not reduce coastal access permanently and any disruption to public access would be temporary during pipe installation. The pipeline option that would distributing recycled water between Perkins Park and Lover’s Point would be primarily in the parks to interconnect with the existing irrigation systems. Caledonia Park distribution pipelines would also include an alignment through the park
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions

7.1.1 Wastewater Flow
Review of the wastewater flow monitoring events concluded that the overall average weekly flow increased from 0.610 MGD in 2016 to 0.671 MGD in 2022, a 10% increase (shown on Figure 3-4). This flow increase is consistent with the 15% projected future flow increase presented in the May 2014 Sewer Collection System Master Plan prepared by the Wallace Group.

The flow patterns differ significantly in terms of hourly values, total average daily flows, and the ratios of the minimum and maximum (peaking factor) to the average. While the 2022 total wastewater flow averaged 0.67 MGD during the flow monitoring period, there appears to be less infiltration and the minimum flows are less than required to operate the WRP at it design capacity 24-hours per day.

7.1.2 Diversion
Figure 3-7 illustrates that 20% of the time during the 2022 monitoring event, the diversion structure inflows at MH 801 were less than the required 0.27 MGD. The lower than required minimum flow occurs between 2 and 6 AM and is consistent with flow observations made by the Operator.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
A flow balance was conducted during November 18 to December 2, 2022 to determine if the diversion structure was capturing all available wastewater flow. The flow balance was inconclusive. There appears to have been an issue with one of the flow meters in either MH 801 or MH 980. The flow data at MH 801 is generally consistent with the February 2016 flow measurements and the 2022 monitoring at MH 980 is suspect.

7.1.3 Recycled Water Production
Review of recycled water production and capability concluded that during the last few years of the operation of the Wastewater Reclamation Plant (WRP), there are periods when the plant does not provide sufficient recycled water to meet the irrigation demands for the Golf Course and potable water is purchased to make up the deficiency. In July 2022, over 25% of the distributed recycled water was potable due to a mechanical problem with the plant. July 2022 has the largest documented supplemental use of potable water.

7.2 Preliminary Cost Estimates
There are several options for recycled water expansion:
• limit the expansion of reclaim water use only to Caledonia Park (System 1), • expand only to Lover’s Point Park (System 2), or
• serve both parks (System 3).

Perkins Park is irrigated by 5 water meters shown in Figure 4-2. The western most meter (Meter E) reported an average water use of less the 4,500 gallons per year (average of 7 years, 2016-2022). This relatively small water use by Meter E does not justify installation of a recycled water system. Two alternatives are provided for distribution pipelines to Perkins Park.

Recycled water for park irrigation would be taken from connections with the existing Golf Course irrigation system to minimize costs. Two potential connection points for the park recycled water are near the 6th Tee and the 4th Hole.

Table 7-1 provides the cost comparison by Alternative. The pipes are 3-inch and 4-inch diameter and unit costs for street construction and park/golf course construction are $250/foot and $140/foot, respectively. Conceptual level pipeline lengths were used for development of AACE International CLASS 4 Cost Estimates. Class 4 estimates are prepared using limited information with engineering typically at the 10% to 20% level.

For comparison, potable water for park irrigation costs between $7,000 and $7,500 per AF (2022).

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 7-1 Summary of Cost by Alternatives
a/ System 4 – Perkins Park water is via Lover’s Point. Alternative A requires concurrent construction of System 2 or 3 b/ Pacific Grove Local Water Project Business Plan. Prepared by Daniel Gho and Tori Hannah on July 21, 2021.

7.3 Recommendations

7.3.1 Future Flow Monitoring
• Prior to flow monitoring, the flows in and out of the Diversion MH 801A should be observed during high and low flow periods. At the same time, the flows into MH 980 should be observed to confirm that the diversion is functioning. If the plant is operating around the clock, there should be zero or minimum flow into MH 980 between 2 and 6 AM. • The flow study should focus on the period between 2 and 6 AM when sewer flows are near minimum.
• The sewer flow should be measured during the July or August period when the irrigation demands are maximum and the WRP is operating at its maximum capacity. This flow study should be part of the diversion structure evaluation recommendations.

7.3.2 Diversion Structure Evaluation
Given that it has been reported the available flows at the diversion are insufficient to operate the WRP at its design capacity, it is recommended that the flow balance study of the diversion structure be repeated during the high irrigation season. The WRF is operating at its maximum capacity from July through August. The flow data at the diversion is needed to determine if the existing WRP can operate 24-hours per day. During flow studies, a recorder should be installed on the diversion pump flow meter to record the flow rates.

7.3.3 Recycled Water Production
• The flow study should be coordinated with the WRP operations staff and hourly production data be made available.
1 2 3 4 5 6
System Caledonia
Park
Lovers Point
Only
Caledonia
& Lovers
Point Parks
Perkins
Parka/
Alternative A
(via Lovers
Pt)
Perkins
Park
Alternative
B (via Del
Monte)
All Three
Parks with
Perkins via
Lover's Park
Estimated Total Cost $230,000 $590,000 $750,000 $670,000 $880,000 $1,420,000 Project Life - years 30 30 30 30 30 30
Annual Cost for Construction $7,700 $19,700 $25,000 $22,300 $29,300 $47,300 AFY 1.39 2.55 3.94 1.84 1.84 5.78
Annual Capital cost per AFY $5,540 $7,725 $6,345 $12,120 $15,924 $8,183 O&M per AF (from Business
Plan)b/ $7,820 $7,820 $7,820 $7,820 $7,820 $7,820
Total Capital and O&M $/AF $13,359 $15,545 $14,165 $19,939 $23,744 $16,003 PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
• The time of day and flow rates of WAS discharges to the sewer should be recorded as the WAS enters the Asilomar sewer between the Diversion manhole (801A) and the downstream MH 980. • If there is insufficient sewage flow during early morning periods, determine if the plant can be programmed to operate both trains when there is adequate influent flow and then only operate a single train when the influent flow is limited. This could maximize recycled water production, but at less than the 0.25 MGD design capacity.
• Determine how much of the WRP membrane flows can be modulated? Is this feasible with the current membrane system programming? Determine if the current control system programming for the influent pumping system is maximized. • Determine if the capacity of the biological reactors limit the overall plant capacity. • Evaluate inflow equalization as an alternative to varying the production rates.

7.3.4 Recycled Water Distribution
If the City determines the expansion of the recycled water distribution system is economically feasible, the following design elements should be considered. Based on the data presented in Table 2-6, it is recommended that the pipe supplying recycled water to Caledonia Park be 3-inch diameter or larger. If a one hour per day maximum irrigation period is required, a 4-inch diameter is recommended. The proposed pipeline serving Lover’s Point would be 4-inch diameter. The new pipelines integrated into the existing irrigation systems for Perkins Park are estimated to have 3-inch diameters. The recommended pipeline routing minimizes construction in the streets which has a higher cost than construction in either the parks or the Golf Course.

If the City determines to proceed with construction of facilities delivering recycled water to the parks under consideration here within, a geotechnical and utility investigations should be conducted to refine the conceptual designs and cost estimates. Modifications to the Perkins Park irrigation systems into recycled water conveyance systems requires further analysis of the existing systems.

The accuracy of the system as-build drawings needs to be verified.

Irrigation schedules for the parks need to be coordinated with the irrigation schedules of the Golf Course and Cemetery given the available capacity of the irrigation pumping system at the Reclamation Plant site.

Due to low irrigation demand and the distance from the proposed irrigation system, its recommended that the section of Perkins Park irrigated by water meter E (Figure 2-4) not be included in the recycled water expansion.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Appendix A: Financial Review
Expansion of the existing golf course recycled water system to close proximity parks is an economic decision. In Section 4, the capital costs for providing recycled water to three parks is developed. An Excel based model is used to determine the total costs of providing recycled water for the six systems described in Section 4.

Table A-1 presents the unit costs of recycled water per acre-foot (AF) which allows comparison with current costs of potable water. Factors that affect the recycled water unit costs are a) capital cost, b) amortization rate, c) life of the system, d) annual irrigation requirements, and e) recycled water production costs. In Table A-1, it is assumed that additional labor costs for maintenance of park irrigation systems will not increase over current costs using potable water. It is also assumed that the costs for producing recycled water at the Wastewater Reclamation Plant is current unit cost of $7,820 per acre foot. Irrigation of the three parks is estimated to require 5.8 AF for the average year. This represents an increase of 5% over the 2022 recycled water use of 114.4 AF.

Given that the peak irrigation seasons coincide for the parks and the golf course, availability of recycled water during the July – October could limit recycled water irrigation of the parks.

The State of California as a grant program to assist cities with construction costs for recycled water systems. If the City of Pacific Grove can obtain such grants, the net construction and total water costs can be reduced. For example, Table A-2 assumes that 30% of the construction costs are offset with grants.

Table A-1 Costs of Providing Recycled Water to Parks in Proximity of the Golf Course PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Table A-2 Costs of Providing Recycled Water to Parks with 30% Grant Funding of Construction A parametric analysis was conducted to illustrate the effects of possible grants, interest rates and amortization period (pipeline useful life) on the costs of providing recycled water to the parks Analyses listed in Table A-3). The results of the parametric analysis is presented in Figures A-1 through A-6.

Table A-3 Parametric Analyses Conducted
Figure System Cost
Components
Amortization
Period
Interest
Rate
Grant
Funding
Fig. 7-5 3: Caledonia & Lover’s Pt Capital Only 30 years 0 to 6% 0 to 50% Fig. 7-6 3: Caledonia & Lover’s Pt Capital + O&M 30 years 0 to 6% 0 to 50% Fig. 7-7 6: Caledonia, Lover’s & Perkins Capital Only 30 years 0 to 6% 0 to 50% Fig. 7-8 6: Caledonia, Lover’s & Perkins Capital + O&M 30 years 0 to 6% 0 to 50% The economic results will enable the City to evaluate the alternatives and determine a plan of action.

The City can also use the financial model to evaluate additional scenarios.

PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure A-1 Caledonia + Lover’s Point Parks: Capital Costs, 30 Yr Amortization without O&M Figure A-2 Caledonia + Lover’s Point Parks: Capital + O&M, 30 Yr- Amortization PGCC 6-21-23

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure A-3 Perkins, Caledonia + Lover’s Point Parks: Capital Costs Only: 30 Yr Amortization without O&M Figure A-4 Perkins, Caledonia + Lover’s Point Parks: Capital + O&M, 30 Yr Amortization PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 F

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: Safety Improvements at 5-way intersection
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City to enter into an agreement with GHD for Phase I of the Congress, Cedar, and Sunset Intersection Safety Improvement Project in an amount not to exceed $797,574

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

DISCUSSION
Background
In 2016, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC), in partnership with the City of Pacific Grove (City) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), conducted a study of the State Route 68 Corridor (SR68) segment located in Pacific Grove City bounds, the Pacific Grove Hwy 68 Corridor Study.
https://www.tamcmonterey.org/pacific-grove-hwy-68-corridor-study The intent of the study was to identify improvements that would provide safer access for all modes of travel. The study identifies several areas along the State Route corridor, which is managed by Caltrans and within the City boundary, that are ripe for safety improvements. However, the City has focused on the implementation of complete street improvements to the five-legged intersection of Sunset Drive, Congress Avenue and Cedar Street. This intersection has been selected as it is adjacent to two schools, is heavily trafficked, and has historically been an area of interest for improvement by the community and TAMC.

On November 8, 2016, TAMC placed the Transportation Safety & Investment Plan (Measure X) on the ballot, the measure was approved with 67.7% approval from Monterey County voters. The measure, through retail transactions and use tax of three-eighths of one percent (3/8%) is anticipated to generate an estimated $20 million annually for 30 years. The revenue from the sales tax measure is used for transportation safety and mobility projects in Monterey County. 40% of the revenue is allocated to Regional Projects via the Regional Safety Mobility and Walkability Program; TAMC has identified and allocated funding for specific projects across the county; one of the projects identified includes improvements to the SR68 Corridor within the Pacific Grove bounds. A total of $5 Million has been allocated.

PGCC 6-21-23

allocated.

As part of the FY22/23 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the multi-year Cedar St, Sunset Dr & Congress Ave Intersection Improvements Project was approved by the City Council; $1M was allocated from the Measure X Regional Safety Mobility and Walkability Program to the initial phase of the project.

On October 19, 2022, Council approved a formal Measure X funding agreement with TAMC for an amount not to exceed $1,000,000, of the larger $5M bucket, to the initial phase and kick off the project.

Selecting a Consultant
This project is a multi-year, multi-million-dollar endeavor. Ultimately, the goal is to construct safety and multi-modal improvements at the Congress Ave, Sunset Dr, & Cedar St, 5-way intersection within Caltrans jurisdiction. Prior to reaching the construction phase, the City must take several steps to successfully design and permit the project.

The immediate first step is that the City must retain a firm with the knowledge and expertise to identify and design safety improvements on SR 68 West with particular attention to bicycle and pedestrian access to Forest Grove Elementary School and Pacific Grove High School along with the intersections of Sunset Drive/Congress Avenue/ Cedar Street, Sunset Drive/19th Street, and Sunset Drive/Forest Avenue.

In order to find this firm, the City released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in January of 2023 for the Intersection Project Study Report, Environmental Impact Review and Concept Design for Congress, Sunset, Cedar Intersection Multi-Modal Safety Improvements. The RFQ period closed on February 23, 2023. The City received two statements of qualifications (SOQ) for the project from:

1. Kimley Horn, and

2. GHD
City staff reviewed both statements and held panel interviews with both firms. Following this process, GHD was selected as the preferred consultant. Since the 5-way intersection is within Caltrans jurisdiction, the selected consultant must have vast experience working with Caltrans on similar projects. Navigating the permitting process and ultimately gaining approval to construct safety improvements at an intersection within a State Highway will take time, has numerous steps, and will require tremendous outreach and studies to obtain all the necessary permits. GHD has the team to accomplish these goals and has developed a preliminary work plan to guide the project (Attachment 1).

Following the interviews, GHD worked with the City to prepare a scope and fee schedule associated with the scope of services (Attachment 2).

Scope of Work & Approach
Successful execution of this project will require adhering to the Caltrans project process and entails the 4 phases noted below:

Phase 1: Project Initiation Document (PID)
Phase 2: Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) Phase 3: Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E), and Phase 4: Construction
PGCC 6-21-23

Due to the lengthy Caltrans process noted above, costs, and timing, the project agreement will be phased. The requested agreement is in an amount not to exceed $797,574. This will allow for the City to complete Phase 1, PID. The PID process is intricate and lengthy process; it is anticipated to span a 12-month period. More information on the PID phase is provided below. More information on all project phases is included in Attachment 1.

Phase 1 – PID
Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual states that projects shall be adequately scoped prior to approval. The basis for scope, cost, and schedule shall be documented in a PID for all major projects on the State Highway System. To adequately prepare the PID, the City must complete the following:

Alternatives Analysis
Data collection, review, and analysis
Purpose and Need Statement
Public outreach
Alternatives development
Intersection Safety and Operational Analysis Process (ISOAP)/ Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA)
Preparation of PID
Stormwater Data Report (SWDR), Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR), Right of Way Data Sheets (RWDS)
Design Standards Risk Assessment
Preliminary cost estimate
Draft & Final Project Study Report (PSR)- Project Development Support (PDS) Finalize Study Limits
Right-of-way and topo surveys
Project description
Design optimization/Geometric approval
There is potential for savings in Phase 1, the PID following the alternatives analysis. If no alternatives are identified and a single project type is determined, then the City may be able to proceed with the single design and portions of the PID process may be eliminated resulting in cost savings. This cannot be determined until the City enters the first phase of the project and completed the alternatives development process.

As noted above, The total for Phase 1 (request for this evening) is $797,574.

Phase 2 – PA&ED
Once Phase 1 of the project is complete, and a recommended treatment is determined, the City can proceed to Phase 2. Phase 2 consist of project approval and environmental documents (PA&ED). To support the PA&ED stages the following will need to be completed:

Technical Studies
Traffic, Biology, Cultural, SWDR, Noise, Air Quality, Land Use, Visual, Hazardous Material, Geotechnical
Preliminary Engineering/Project Report
30% Plans, Specifications & Estimates (PS&E)
Draft and Final Project Report
Environmental Document
Permitting
Public outreach
PGCC 6-21-23

Public outreach
Admin draft, Draft, & Final Environmental Document
Permitting, including Coastal Commission & RWQCB
Total for Phase 2: Estimated at $1.1 Million
Phase 3 – PS&E
Upon completion Phase 2, the City will then enter the third and final planning/permitting phase, which is PS&E and construction support. Phase 3 consists of:

Right of Way Support
Identification/minimization of impacts
Appraisals, Plats & Legals, and Acquisition support
Right of Way Certification
Plans, Specifications, & Estimate
60%, 90%, and 100% PS&E
Utilities: positive identification, coordination, potential Relocation support, and certification
Constructability review
Bid Support
Bid package, respond to bidder inquiries, attend pre-bid meeting, compile bid results Construction oversite
Engineering support during construction
Post-construction traffic report
Total for Phase 3: Estimated at $1.3 Million
Phase 4 – Construction
The final project phase is the construction phase. The cost of construction is largely dependent on the alternative selected. If a roundabout is the selected improvement, high level construction estimates are around $7M.

TOTAL PROJECT HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW:

This is a multi-year, multi-million-dollar effort that will need to be executed in phases.

Tonight's request is to authorize an agreement with GHD in an amount not to exceed $797,574. This will allow the City to embark on the initial phase of the project, the PID phase (Phase 1).

It is anticipated that Phases 1 – 3 will equate to a total of $3.2M. Construction costs will vary depending on the improvements selected for the intersection. If the desired alternative is a roundabout, the total project cost (planning, environmental and construction) may equate to $10M. Alternative intersection safety measures may be recommended which would yield lower planning, design, engineering and construction costs.

Initial Agreement & Subsequent Amendments
If approved, the City’s standard agreement (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.

As the City nears completion of Phase 1, Staff will work with the consultant to create a clear scope of PGCC 6-21-23

services for the subsequent phase. This will be brought forth to council for consideration. If approved, an amendment to the original agreement will be executed.

OPTIONS
Do not approve an agreement contract with GHD. This will essentially stop the project and no evaluation of the intersection will occur.

1. 2. Provide alternative direction
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$5,000,000 has been earmarked by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) for the Pacific Grove State Route 68 corridor, derived from Measure X Regional Safety Mobility and Walkability Program allocation. The City entered into a funding agreement with TAMC in November of 2022 allocating $1,000,000 towards the intersection project. This allocation is sufficient to fund this agreement to execute Phase 1, PID.

The grant revenues and expenditures to support this contract have been included in the Fiscal Year 23/24 Proposed Budget.

As stated above, the total project cost cannot yet to be determined, primarily because a specific project approach has yet to be determined. If a roundabout is constructed, total cost could be upwards of $10 million. If a roundabout is determined to be the best intersection control, then the city will have to seek grant funding to fund the remaining project balance.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Work Plan
Scope and Fee
PGCC 6-21-23

GHD City of Pacific Grove
Work Plan
Alternatives Analysis - 4 months
− Data collection, review, and analysis
− Purpose and Need statement
− Public outreach
− Alternatives development
− ISOAP/TEPA
Preparation of PID - 8 months
− SWDR, PEAR, RWDS
− Design Standards Risk Assessment
− Preliminary cost estimate
− Draft & Final PSR-PDS
Finalize Study Limits - 2 months
− Right-of-way and topo surveys
− Project description
− Design optimization/Geometric approval
Technical Studies - 8 months
− Traffic, Biology, Cultural, SWDR, Noise, Air Quality, Land Use, Visual, Hazardous Material, Geotechnical
Prelim. Engineering/Project Report - 12 months
− 30% PS&E (incl. utility coordination)
− Draft & Final Project Report
Environmental Document - 8 months /
Permitting - 12 months
− Public outreach
− Admin draft, Draft, & Final Environmental Document
− Permitting, including Coastal Commission & RWQCB
Right of Way Support - 18 months
− Identification/minimization of impacts
− Appraisals, Plats & Legals, and Acquisition support
− Right of Way Certification
Plans, Specifications, & Estimate - 18 months
− 60%, 90%, and 100% PS&E
− Utilities: positive identification, coordination, potential relocation support, and certification
− Constructability review
Bid Support - 4 months
− Bid package, respond to bidder inquiries, attend pre-bid meeting, compile bid results
Construction Support - 20 months
− Engineering support during construction
− Post construction traffic report
Project Management / Stakeholder Coordination
PID
12 months
PA&ED
12 months
PS&E
18 months
Construction
24 months
Alternatives
Analysis
Preparation
of PID
Technical Studies
Environmental
Document/
Permitting
Construction
Support
Plans,
Specifications,
& Estimate
Finalize
Study Limits
Prelim.

Engineering/
Project Report
Right of Way
Support
Bid Support
*Potential to streamline this phase if only one alternative is accepted by Caltrans following the Alternative Analysis Phase
*
PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
City of Pacific Grove
Congress, Sunset, Cedar Intersection Multi-Modal Safety Improvements REVISED Scope of Work
The following scope of work was prepared by GHD to identify the services that will be provided to the City of Pacific Grove to move the SR 68 for Congress, Sunset, Cedar Intersection Multi-Modal Safety Improvements through the Alternatives Analysis and Caltrans Project Initiation Document (PID) phase.

GHD is ready to provide the necessary assistance from the critical first steps (pre-PID/Alternatives Analysis) right through to the approved scoping document, with the intent of supporting the City to get to a single build alternative. For this project, at this time and for the purpose of this initial scope of work, it is expected that the required scoping document will be a Project Study Report – Project Development Support (PSR-PDS).

The scope of services was developed with the following goals in mind:
– Deliver a project that meets current and future operational requirements. – Develop a geometrically-approvable preferred alternative(s), with the intent of getting to a single alternative.
– Recognize active transportation, complete streets and equity are important transportation components for the project’s design.
– Build public and agency consensus around preferred alternative(s). – Efficiently manage the preparation of PSR-PDS supporting documents for the City’s and Caltrans’ approval.
– Implement an effective quality process that covers all work performed by the project team.

Future phases for PA/ED and PS&E will be negotiated with the City once the PID phase is completed and a scope of the Build Alternative is better known.

Task 1 – Project Management
GHD will provide project management; coordination with and between project team members, coordination with the City of Pacific Grove project manager; and coordination with the Project Development Team (PDT).

1.1 – Project Management and Coordination
GHD will perform the following duties:
– Supervise, coordinate and monitor procedures for preparation of the Alternative Analysis, Project Study Report /Project Development Support (PSR/PDS), and other supporting studies consistent with and in conformance to the guidelines published in Caltrans “Project Development Procedures Manual” (PDPM).
– Coordinate and monitor deliverables by sub consultants in accordance with this work plan. – Coordinate project reviews by the Project Development Team (PDT). – General correspondence, monthly progress reports, invoicing, and project schedule updates.

1.2 – Quality Management Plan
GHD will prepare a draft quality management plan (QMP) consistent with the plan outline and format provided in Caltrans PDPM. The draft QMP will be provided to the City and Caltrans for review and comment. Upon approval of the QMP, GHD will be responsible for maintaining the QMP and monitoring project deliverables for conformance with the QMP throughout the length of this project. The QMP establishes a process to ensure:

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 2
– Personnel responsible for assuring quality are independent of those having direct responsibility for the work being performed.
– Review comments and recommended changes are properly addressed and/or resolved. – Project documents, correspondence, and memoranda are appropriately distributed. – Document control is established and maintained for proper storage and handling of project materials, providing only the current versions for use by the Project Team. – Discipline/Task Managers perform and/or certify required inter- and intra-disciplinary Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) reviews are completed prior to deliverable submittals. – Project Manager approves the distribution of all deliverables and certifies that QMP requirements have been satisfactorily performed.
– Work products conform to nomenclature and formatting requirements and are free of typographical and syntax errors.
– Project activities are accomplished in accordance with appropriate design criteria, industry standards, and federal, state, and other regulatory requirements.

1.3 – Project Meetings
GHD’s Project Manager and select team members will organize and attend the following virtual (unless otherwise noted) meetings:
– Project kick-off meeting held in-person with GHD and City staff. – Project Development Team (PDT) meetings with the City, Caltrans, and other agency/stakeholder staff, which will be scheduled to be conducted once per month, for no more than 12 meetings. – Bi-weekly 30-minute check in meetings with City staff (scope assumes no mor than 24 meetings) – Field walk with GHD Project Manager, Project Engineer, City and Caltrans staff.

To facilitate these meetings, GHD will coordinate, schedule, and lead meetings. Prepare PDT meeting records and project schedule updates. GHD will coordinate the first or kick-off PDT meeting to initiate the PID project phase. Sub-consultants will attend based on their level of involvement at any time during the project, the scope of which is included in their overall tasks below.

1.4 - Community Outreach and Presentations
Public Information Open House (1)
GHD will provide assistance as needed with an open house to be held as the Alternative Analysis approaches completion, prior to the preparation of the Draft PSR-PDS. The project’s Purpose and Need will be presented, and the alternatives being considered displayed in a manner that will allow the public to ask questions and comment on the proposed alternatives. The input received will be presented in the study’s Draft PSR-PDS as public comments.

If the City desires an additional open house during the course of this study, a separate scope of work and fee estimate to provide GHD assistance will be submitted to the City for prior approval.

Project Presentations (2) <<For minimized fee purposes, assume approximately $5,000 per meeting for preparation (including powerpoint), coordination, and attendance>> GHD will be available to support the City in making two (2) presentations to the Pacific Grove City Council.

One is anticipated at the end of the Alternative Analysis phase, and another is anticipated after the Draft PSR-PDS is completed.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 3

1.5 – Stakeholder Outreach << For minimized fee purposes, assume approximately $2,000 per meeting for preparation, coordination, and attendance>>
Stakeholder Outreach
GHD recommends these meetings be held one-on-one or in small groups of stakeholders with similar interests in-person. At least one (1) meeting should be held with each property owner affected by the project. The purpose and timing of the meeting(s) is to listen to their concerns and provide time for the design team to respond with potential solutions prior to the second project presentation.

At this time, it is anticipated that up to twenty (20) property owner meetings will be required with Stakeholders.

Task 2 – Data Collection and Base Mapping

2.1 – Data Collection
The types of information collected could include (but not be limited to) GIS data, as built plans, utility maps, record improvement drawings and reports and existing data including City/and Caltrans collision data, rightof-way information, records maps, title information, utility information, etc.

2.2 – Preliminary Survey/Base Mapping
The following services will be provided by Whitson.

Control and Aerial Mapping
– Research existing State Plane control and benchmark control. – Set local ground control and aerial control panels, as shown in the attached Aerial Mapping Exhibit. – Obtain aerial mapping for the mapping area shown on the attached Survey Exhibit. Mapping will be at a scale of 1” =20’ with a one-foot contour interval.

Utility Mapping
– Obtain system maps of public utilities from utility owners. Underground utilities will be plotted based on visible features and system maps (ASCE-38 Quality Level C). – Perform a field check of visible utility structures.
– Perform a supplemental field survey to locate sewer and storm drain structures, including invert elevations. Locate utility structures not identified in the aerial survey.

Boundary Mapping
– Review record maps and lay out record boundary.
– Perform a limited field survey to recover monuments of record to corroborate the record boundary layout.
– Develop a boundary base map showing record rights-of-way within the subject project area. Please note: This will not constitute a boundary survey.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 4
Task 3 – Alternatives Analysis

3.1 – Develop Project Purpose and Need
The “No Build” transportation conditions (existing and future) identified and evaluated within the ICE Step 1 report will primarily be used to draft the initial purpose and need statement. This information will be supplemented as needed with current Caltrans and SWITR collision data. The purpose and need statement will be incrementally reviewed and refined by the project development team members. The final Purpose and Need statement will then be prepared upon resolution of all provided comments.

3.2 – Conduct ICE Evaluation and Traffic Engineering Performance Assessment (TEPA)
GHD will perform the traffic analysis for the project utilizing the latest demand model and obtain new counts for the corridor and both the Congress and Forest intersections. The existing information shall be summarized in an existing conditions memo for review/approval by the City and Caltrans and only a Draft and Final version are assumed. The calibrated model will be summarized in a Forecasting Memo for review/approval by Caltrans and only a Draft and Final version are assumed.

Once forecasting and existing conditions are approved, GHD will prepare a Draft Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) – Note that this will probably morph into the Intersection Safety and Operational Analysis Process (ISOAP) once that has been formalized, potentially in fall 2023, however, an ICE has been scoped for the purpose of this project, but should be a similar level of effort as long as the style of evaluation stays the same once we begin compiling. Preliminary alternative layouts showing both the recommended signal and roundabout layouts, including approach roadway geometrics, will be prepared and provided within the Draft ICE. The Draft ICE shall also include all supporting capacity calculations and corresponding truck/bus turns. Upon review of the Draft ICE by the City and Caltrans and resolution of all comments, GHD will then prepare a Final ICE for approval. The following services represent the work that will be provided to prepare and process the ICE evaluations. In addition, sufficient information and data will be provided through both ICE evaluation as to prepare the Design Scoping Index, Preliminary Traffic Engineering Assessment and Division of Engineering Services Scoping Index scoping tools.

Traffic and Performance Analysis Findings
Design Checks/Optimization. Geometrics and operations associated with the signal and roundabout alternatives developed as part of Task 3.3 will be optimized. For each roundabout alternative the following design checks will be performed:
– Fast Paths
– View Angles
– Truck Turns
– Pedestrian/Bike Facilities
– Potential Project Phasing
VISSIM/Sim-Traffic Simulations. Micro-Simulation for both the roundabout and traffic signal alternatives will be evaluated under this task to ascertain queuing impacts from one location would not impact operations at the adjacent intersections. For the traffic signal alternative Sim-Traffic will be utilized to perform the queuing analysis and for the roundabout alternative, VISSIM will be utilized.

Deviations from Design Standards. Possible deviations from Caltrans Design Standards for all alternatives will be identified. Possible design exceptions will be noted under this task. This task does not, however, include preparation of fact sheets.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 5
Cost Analysis
Mobility Costs. The mobility costs (vehicle operating costs) and environmental costs will be estimated for both the alternatives using the cost module available in SIDRA. The vehicle operating cost parameters will be obtained from Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Parameters published by Caltrans.

Collision Costs. Costs associated with each crash type will be quantified using the expected crash reduction (CMF) for the intersection type and the number of accidents obtained within the preliminary safety analysis section. Transportation Planning Division of Caltrans provides the costs associated with accident types in Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Analysis Economic Parameter. This information will be utilized to determine collision costs.

Environmental and Other Costs. Environmental costs will be computed for both the alternatives using the cost module available in SIDRA and other costs including operations and maintenance, landscape maintenance and pavement rehabilitation will be estimated based on input from City and Caltrans.

Life-Cycle/Investment Analysis Findings.

Opinion of Probable Cost. Cost estimates consistent with Caltrans requirements (eleven-page cost estimates) will be prepared under this task for the alternatives and include information obtained from Task

3.4 regarding right of way.

Service Life (Estimated Number of Years). To the extent feasible, FHWA suggests that it is a good practice to phase roundabout design to achieve improved safety. Based on the phasing for each alternative as appropriate, the expected service life will be identified for each alternative.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis – Benefit/Cost Index. A cost benefit index for each alternative will be estimated based on the cost estimates and various benefits estimated in the Traffic and Performance Analysis Findings.

Future Investment Needed to Extend Life. Costs will be estimated for each of the alternatives for interim and ultimate phases. This will enable estimating the future investment needed to extend the project life from an interim to the ultimate project phase. This information will provide the City with an idea of funding and phasing strategy for constructing the interim and ultimate design.

Prepare Draft and Final Study.

A draft report will be prepared consistent with the guidelines identified in the TOPD policy guidelines for review and comment by the City, Caltrans and other reviewing agencies. The study will include a comparison of the performance of each alternative based on previously agreed to Measures of Effectiveness. Provided comments will be responded to via a response to comment memorandum and/or update to the ICE study as appropriate.

GHD will then prepare a Draft TEPA utilizing the information described above, including the ICE, to document the existing and future traffic conditions and recommended roundabout and roadway geometry for the Project improvements to provide efficient traffic operations. Note that this will be a more robust document than is typical of a TEPA so as to support the conclusions required to ultimately end up with a single build alternative. Thus, this TEPA will end up being a mini–Draft Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR), therefore limiting the potential rework during PA/ED for traffic documentation. Upon review of the Draft TEPA by the City and Caltrans and resolution of all comments, GHD will then prepare a Final TEPA for approval. For the basis of this proposal, this project is assumed to be non VMT inducing, and no additional documentation or analysis will be required.

3.3 – Alternatives Development
Alternatives (up to three total) will be designed and evaluated based on impacts to right of way, utilities, and Caltrans facilities. The Alternatives will be compared to determine which should be included in the final PSR-PDS. Alternatives will be scoped for probable construction costs, potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the City’s complete streets master planning. Alternatives under consideration will be reviewed by the City and Caltrans.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 6

3.4 – Right of Way Data Sheet
In support of the Alternatives Analysis and for ultimate inclusion in the PSR-PDS, a right-of-way cost estimate and Caltrans Data Sheets are to be prepared by a qualified real estate consultant. Monument will evaluate the potential right-of-way requirements, affected parcels and associated capital costs related to each alignment alternative under consideration for the proposed interchange modernization project. As such, the following Scope of Work itemizes the tasks and deliverables that will be performed by Monument. – Take an inventory of the affected properties for each selected option. – Using public Assessor’s Roll information, investigate the ownership, lot size, and building size of each affected property.
– Visually inspect each property (exterior street view) and evaluate effects of proposed acquisition. List all businesses on each property and the approximate space they occupy. – Sort each property into product types to determine the universe of real estate data sets to research and create valuation data sets for each product type.
– Prepare an estimate of the probable cost of each full property acquisition or the cost of each partial acquisition (plus damages) using the data sets created and utilizing our various real estate value data bases.
– Prepare an estimate of the probable relocation assistance exposure for each residential or nonresidential occupant located on each property. – Prepare an estimate of the immoveable fixtures and equipment associated with each business property.
– Prepare an estimate of the total probable loss of business goodwill attributable to each operating business.
– Prepare an estimate of the inspection and demolition costs associated with delivering each cleared site.
– Prepare an estimate of the total services and incidental costs associated with each real estate acquisition program (appraisals, acquisition and relocation agents, title/escrow, and legal services). – Ascertain the estimated cost for potential utility relocations from the design engineer and/or utility coordinator (preparing a cost estimate for utility relocations is excluded from Monument’s scope of work).

The scope of work will be performed and delivered in the form of a report containing a description of the project areas studied, a summary of total probable costs of the study area itemized by major component and will include detailed spreadsheets showing how the summary sheets were calculated. The spreadsheets contain a parcel-by-parcel breakdown of all probable costs.

In the event that the acquisition program is to be phased or determined to be implemented at a future date, formulized spreadsheets will be created which apply the appropriate cost escalation factors to reflect the projected schedule.

The final cost information determined from the accumulation of data will then be transferred into the appropriate format for application to the Right of Way Data Sheets, or other format required by the project.

Task 4 – PSR-PDS Document

4.1 – Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR)
Rincon will prepare a Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR). Rincon will utilize the most recent PEAR template provided by Caltrans and coordinate with Caltrans District 5 Environmental staff on the latest procedures they are using in the development of PEARs. The purpose of this PEAR is to clearly outline and estimate the scope, schedule, and cost for completing the environmental process for the project (PA&ED) and identify the anticipated environmental commitments from the project. More specifically, the PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 7
PEAR will identify those aspects of the preliminary designs of the project that may have a potential significant effect on the environment based on information known to date. The PEAR will identify the type of future studies and evaluations which must be performed and the required environmental document that would be required to meet all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. This work effort will include the following tasks.

Coordination and Meetings
The Rincon project manager and technical staff will review existing and available information pertaining to the project area, including information on file with the City and Caltrans that relates to the project area and design information available and developed during the project. This task assumes coordination with Caltrans District 5 staff for the purpose of obtaining information and ensuring an approved format is used for the PEAR document. This task also includes general project management support.

Analysis
Rincon will conduct windshield surveys and provide a qualitative description of potential environmental resources and issues that could affect selection of the recommended alternative, including the types of permits that may be required. This will include the following analysis:
– Land Use/Growth/Socioeconomic/Community Impacts. Describe the general setting of the study area, the types and number of structures, and parcels affected by the project. Discuss potential issues related to the relocation of utilities.
– Farmlands/Timberlands. Describe that there are no agricultural land uses or timberland near the project area.
– Visual/Aesthetic Resources. Identify scenic resources and any adverse visual impacts that may be introduced by the project.
– Cultural Resources. A Rincon cultural resources specialist will conduct a background records search and literature review at the regional Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). The records search and literature review will include the proposed project area as well as a 1-mile buffer around the area. Rincon will also contact the California Native American Heritage Commission to request a search of their Sacred Lands File database and a list of local Native American representatives that may have knowledge of resources, including potential tribal cultural resources within the study area. The report will identify whether the project area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources and discuss possible effects that the project might have on recorded resources within or adjacent to the project area, including any potential cultural resource issues that might affect the alternatives, cost, or viability of the project. The report will also identify cultural resources studies that may be necessary for the project, such as an Archaeological Survey Report or Historical Resources Evaluation Report.
– Hydrology and Floodplain/Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff. Describe the hydrology and floodplain setting and identify water bodies that might be affected by the project. Describe discharge conditions that could affect the project design, scheduling, or construction techniques, discuss any agency coordination and permits, and map the locations of any constraints, including FEMA floodplains, that should be considered during preliminary design on the provided base map. – Geology, Soils, Seismic and Topography. Conduct a background document review of the project area and geologic mapping to identify potential geologic concerns including earthquakes, the suitability of soils to support the proposed development (e.g., shrink/swell, poor drainage, etc.), and the erosion potential across the project site.
– Paleontology. A Rincon paleontologist will conduct a background document review of the project area to identify potential paleontological sensitivity of the project area. – Hazardous Waste/Materials. Conduct a search of on-line hazardous materials records and assess the potential for the project to release hazardous waste or materials. – Air Quality. Describe existing air quality conditions in the project area, the air quality attainment status, and whether the proposed project is included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 8
– Noise and Vibration. Qualitatively assess the potential for noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses, including Pacific Grove High School and nearby residents. – Energy and Climate Change. Rincon will provide a qualitative discussion of project climate change effects based on regional planning strategies and the project’s effect on greenhouse production. The MTP/SCS and/or specific project traffic studies will be reviewed for information on the reduction of vehicle miles traveled and improved traffic flow for the area. – Biological Environment. A Rincon biologist will review existing information and conduct a reconnaissance survey of the project area to identify potential resource issues, including sensitive species habitat. Project issues related to removal of vegetation, including potential impacts on nesting birds, will be described as applicable. The PEAR will identify specific studies or focused surveys needed, any timing issues for conducting the surveys, and any required permits, agreements, or approvals that will be necessary to comply with local, state, and federal regulations. The effect of any potential mitigation on the project scope, cost, or schedule will be identified. – Cumulative Impacts. Consider potential impacts resulting from other projects known or projected to occur within the vicinity of the project within the foreseeable future. A recommendation will be provided as to whether a cumulative impact analysis is needed for a particular resource in the subsequent environmental document phase.
– Section 4(f) Issues. The Department of Transportation Act governs federally funded or authorized transportation projects that require the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance. “Recreational areas” include “formal and informal facilities, including after-school public use of school playgrounds and recreational facilities.” The project may require modifications to the Pacific Grove High School property at the southeast corner of Congress Avenue and Sunset Drive, immediately adjacent to the football field and track facility. As such, Section 4(f) may apply. The PEAR will identify any potential 4(f) lands in the study area and, if present, the type of “use” (fee title, temporary, or “constructive” use) that would likely occur with project implementation; the type of 4(f) compliance that would be needed (individual 4(f) evaluation, programmatic 4(f) evaluation, or temporary occupancy approval); and any other circumstances that have the potential to affect the viability or schedule of the project. Any areas of potential impact will be described.

Draft PEAR Preparation
Rincon will prepare a draft and final PEAR to present the results of the environmental analysis, including identification of possible mitigation requirements. The report will follow the latest Caltrans PEAR template, including (but not limited to) a project description, purpose and need, anticipated environmental approval and anticipated environmental commitments, and PEAR technical summaries. The draft PEAR will be submitted electronically to the City to distribute to the PDT for review and return for comments.

Final PEAR Preparation
Based on the comments received on the draft PEAR, changes will be incorporated, and a revised PEAR will be distributed. This scope of work assumes that one round of consolidated comments from the PDT will be received. After receiving what are anticipated to be minor comments on the revised PEAR, Rincon will prepare a final (electronic copy) PEAR for inclusion in the PSR.

4.2 – Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) (Short Form)
A storm water data report (SWDR) will be prepared commiserate with the level of information and detail required for a PSR-PDS as identified in Caltrans PDPM for approval by Caltrans. The evaluation will focus on determining if there will be any significant impacts to the project alternatives, right of way needs, or project costs due to the need to incorporate treatment best management practices (BMPs) for compliance with stormwater requirements. The Evaluation Documentation Form provided in Appendix E of Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks: Project Planning and Design Guide will be used to document the need to PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 9
incorporate treatment BMPs for this project. The SWDR will summarize the stormwater quality issues and planning decisions made regarding how the project will comply with the Caltrans NPDES permit.

4.3 – Additional PSR-PDS Attachments
Risk Register
GHD will identify risks, probabilities, severities, impacted functions and ownership. GHD will provide information to Caltrans for Caltrans to complete their internal risk register.

Complete Streets Decision Document (CSDD)
GHD will provide a CSDD using the most current template provided by Caltrans.

Vehicle Miles Travelled Decision Document (VMTDD)
GHD will provide a VMTDD using the most current template provided by Caltrans.

Division of Engineering Services Scoping Document
Structures work, as defined by Caltrans, is not anticipated and preparation of this scoping document is not included in the scope.

Traffic Management Plan Data Sheet
GHD will provide a TMP Data Sheet using the most current template provided by Caltrans.

Design Scoping Index
The design scoping index serves as a discussion document for the PDT to assist with identification of appropriate design principles and standards. GHD will prepare the scoping index in conjunction with referencing Caltrans DIB 78 design checklist. The scoping index will be reviewed and accepted by the PDT.

Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet
GHD will be responsible for preparing the Transportation Planning Scoping Information Sheet per guidance provided in the PDPM, specifically Article 4. GHD will work with the PDT, especially Caltrans Transportation Planning representative, to ensure that the Initial PID Information is provided within the information sheet.

GHD will also be responsible for providing the concluding information or Final PID Information that will complete the information sheet as the study approaches conclusion.

Develop Schedule
A schedule for delivery of major milestones of the PA&ED phase and the anticipated funding year for construction will be developed for inclusion in the PSR-PDS.

4.4 – PSR-PDS Submittals
Attachment Documents
As described above, GHD will prepare the required attachments for the PSR-PDS. It is assumed a draft version of each attachment will be provided to the City and Caltrans for concurrent review. The comments received will be addressed and the report/document will be resubmitted. It is assumed no more than two rounds of comments will be provided prior to signature/approval.

Administrative Draft PSR-PDS (ADPSR-PDS)
GHD will prepare the ADPSR-PDS for initial review by the PDT and will include draft products for the majority of the above items. This report will utilize data, conclusions and recommendations identified in the various scoping tools, studies, reports, data sheets and engineering designs completed within this Scope of Work. The document will be distributed in PDF format and distributed as required by City or Caltrans.

PGCC 6-21-23

The Power of Commitment
12604714 | PID Scope 10
Comments received on the ADPSR-PDS will be addressed in writing and incorporated, as appropriate, into the second draft.

Draft PSR-PDS
Based on comments provided by the City and the PDT on the ADPSR-PSR, identified issues or concerns will be addressed in a response to comments memorandum. The ADPSR-PDS will then be updated to reflect changes resulting from the comments and the Draft PSR-PDS will be published for review by the PDT, district-wide Caltrans, and any stakeholders identified by the City. The scope assumes Caltrans will conduct the required safety and constructability reviews as an extension of a PDT meeting during this review phase. The document will be distributed in PDF format. Comments received on the draft PSR-PDS will be addressed in writing and incorporated, as appropriate, into the final signature-ready PSR-PDS.

Final PSR-PDS
GHD will prepare the signature-ready document for approval by the City and Caltrans. The signature-ready document will be routed as requested by the City and Caltrans. Upon final approval, GHD will provide an assembled final PDF. The approved report will be distributed via email and ground mail as requested by the City and Caltrans.

Assumptions
– A Cooperative Agreement will be completed by the City with Caltrans and minimal support required from GHD.
– Concurrent City and Caltrans reviews will be completed for all submittals. – Unless stated specifically otherwise, all reviews and processing time on all submittals is assumed to be 6 weeks. If agency processing exceeds this estimate, additional budget may be required. – Unless stated specifically otherwise, all reports will be limited to one draft and one final version. – Assessor’s parcel maps, as-built drawings from current and former property owners, and any draft improvement plans showing the subject property, stationing, and project limits will be provided by the City/Caltrans/TAMC.
– Only one rendering is provided in this scope of the preferred Build Alternative in support of Public and Stakeholder Outreach.
– Surface and grading work will not begin until PS&E.
– Life Cycle Cost Analysis, pavement overlay, deflection testing, or pavement smoothness studies are not included in this scope.
– Geotechnical and Materials work will not begin until PS&E. – Utility records to be imported are in 2-dimensional format only. No 3-dimensional drawings or pipe networks are to be prepared.
– Utility relocation design is not included and will be completed by the utility owner. – Long Form SWDR is required once project moves into PS&E. – Project will utilize published State Plane NAD 83 horizontal control and NAVD 1988 vertical control. – Underground utility location, including utility potholing will not begin until PS&E. – Right of Way Engineering, including preparation of Acquisition Plats or Appraisal Maps; Filing of Record of Survey for monumentation or resetting missing property corners; Preparation of Plats and Legal Descriptions; Staking or Layout of proposed improvements will not begin until PS&E.

PGCC 6-21-23

City of Pacific Grove
Congress, Sunset, Cedar Intersection Multi-Modal Safety Improvements GHD Draft Fee for PID Phase
Jay WalterHeather AndersonRon BoyleKamesh
Vedula
Lindsey
Van Parys
Matt Wargula
Principal-InCharge
Project ManagerRoundabout DesignTraffic QA/QCQA/QC &Public Outreach Asst PM
Const ManagerTech Director 1Tech Director 2Senior Prof 1Senior Prof 2Prof 1Design Tech 2Prof 2Project Coord 315$ 315$ 375$ 350$ 350$ 315$ 295$ 290$ 265$ 240$ 220$ 210$ 205$ 180$ 131$ Task 1 Project Management 692 177,268 $

1.1 Project Management and Coordination 12 24 20 60 116 25,500$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 116 $ 25,500

1.2 Quality Management Plan 4 8 12 24 48 13,740$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 48 $ 13,740

1.3 Project Meetings 4 56 18 22 48 4 12 12 12 8 196 57,448$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 196 $ 57,448

1.4 Community Outreach and Presentations 4 20 6 18 8 6 20 52 28 162 40,430$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 162 $ 40,430

1.5 Stakeholder Outreach 24 24 6 28 48 40 170 40,150$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 170 $ 40,150 Task 2 Data Collection and Base Mapping 225 $ 48,335

2.1 Data Collection 2 4 4 12 24 46 10,210$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 46 $ 10,210

2.2 Preliminary Survey/Base Mapping 2 4 8 16 40 70 14,050$ - -$ - -$ 109 24,075$ 179 $ 38,125 Task 3 Alternatives Analysis 1,494 345,725 $

3.1 Develop Project Purpose and Need 4 4 8 16 4,280$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 16 $ 4,280

3.2 Conduct ICE Evaluation and TEPA - -$ - -$ - -$ - -$ - $ -

3.2A Conduct ICE Evaluation 1 12 24 80 2 12 64 180 320 60 100 855 198,035$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 855 $ 198,035

3.2B TEPA (Mini TOAR) 1 4 30 2 4 16 60 80 20 20 237 55,575$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 237 $ 55,575

3.3 Alternatives Development 2 12 40 4 24 20 8 16 20 24 40 80 290 72,270$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 290 $ 72,270

3.4 Right of Way Data Sheet 4 4 40 48 9,720$ 48 5,845$ - -$ - -$ 96 $ 15,565 Task 4 PSR-PDS Document 833 192,468 $

4.1 Preliminary Environmental Analysis Report (PEAR) 2 4 2 4 12 12 36 9,190$ - -$ 117 23,848$ - -$ 153 $ 33,038

4.2 Stormwater Data Report (SWDR) (Short Form) 4 2 8 24 40 80 158 34,640$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 158 $ 34,640

4.3 Additional PSR-PDS Attachments 16 8 24 80 80 40 248 56,600$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 248 $ 56,600

4.4 PSR-PDS Submittals 2 24 4 16 40 8 20 16 100 24 20 274 68,190$ - -$ - -$ - -$ 274 $ 68,190 Total Hours 32 220 64 138 88 232 20 32 56 136 552 556 240 516 88 2970 710,028$ 48 5,845$ 117 23,848$ 109 24,075$ 3,244 $ 763,796 7,500$ -$ -$ -$ $ 7,500
15,000$ 700$ 1,200$ 9,378$ $ 26,278
Total
$ 10,080 $ 69,300 $ 24,000 $ 48,300 $ 30,800 $ 73,080 $ 5,900 $ 9,280 $ 14,840 $ 32,640 $ 121,440 $ 116,760 $ 49,200 $ 92,880 $ 11,528 $ 732,528 $ 6,545 $ 25,048 $ 33,453 $ 797,574
Travel/Lodging, Counts, Aerial, and Enviro Analysis Direct Costs Task Description (Assumes 12 month schedule)
MonumentTotal HoursMonumentTotal CostWhitsonTotal Hours GHD Monument Rincon Whitson
Direct Cost (Printing of Materials, Reports)
RinconTotal HoursRinconTotal CostWhitsonTotal Cost

PROJECT TOTALS
GHD Total HoursGHD Total Cost
TTotal Project Cost
otal Project Hours
May 8, 2023
PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 12 G

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Debby Beck, Councilmember, Luke Coletti, Councilmember, Lori, McDonnell, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report and approval of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Direct City staff to proceed with the design of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain.

1. Direct the City Traffic Engineer, City Attorney, and other City staff to prepare a report of relevant safety standards and compliance measures necessary for new and existing parklets. This will include a restriping plan for a) parking spaces adjacent to new and existing parklets, and b) the right-of-way.

2. 3. Extend the term of the City Council Parklet Subcommittee to March 1, 2024.

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

DISCUSSION
Background:

At its June 3, 2020, and June 17, 2020, meetings the City Council ratified emergency measures taken by the City Manager to streamline the processes through which businesses could offer outside dining.

About the same time a Parklet Program Brochure was developed. By August 1, 2020, approximately 11 restaurants were operating parklets on city property under the new temporary rules established by the local emergency. In 2021 and 2022 the City Council adopted ordinance with one-year sunset provisions (Ord. 21-013 and Ord. 22-006) that clarified the scope and effect of the temporary Parklet Program and Outside Dining rules.

At its March 22, 2023, meeting the City Council adopted Ord. 23-004, which expands the encroachment permit process to allow parklets in the public right-of-way. Ord. 23-004 includes the following definition:

15.01.010 (h) “Parklet” means the conversion of one or more parking spaces, that may vary according to the site, context, and desired character of the installation, and are subject to the review and approval of the City Public Works Director or designee under the Parklet Program adopted by City Council PGCC 6-21-23

of the City Public Works Director or designee under the Parklet Program adopted by City Council Resolution.

With the adoption of Ord. 23-004 parklets are now authorized through an annual temporary encroachment permit and are subject to the provisions of the City’s Parklet Program, as defined by the City’s Parklet Guidelines and associated design standards. Issuing an annual encroachment permit allows the parklets to remain temporary and revocable if the Parklet Guidelines conditions are not met.

The parklet operator does not have tenure in their parklet, and the permit does not run with the land.

Parklet operators must comply with the provisions of the Parklet Program as they exist at the time of renewal of their annual encroachment permit.

When adopting Ord. 23-004 a motion was also included to form our subcommittee. Since that time, Subcommittee Members Beck, Coletti, and McDonnell have been meeting with City staff.

Safety First:

Initially, our Subcommittee discussions centered around revisions to the draft Parklet Guidelines and associated design standards. However, it quickly became apparent that safety concerns must be addressed first. At this point the City’s Traffic Engineer, Richard Deal of 4Leaf, joined our discussions. With increased visibility and safety in mind, the subcommittee decided to immediately recommend consideration of extending the sidewalk where parklets currently exist, especially those located on corners, where it is difficult to see pedestrians attempting to cross the street. Parklets would be located on the extended sidewalk and not within the public right-of-way. Due to the number of inquiries and concerns about the existing parklet at Lighthouse and Fountain (the current Victorian Corner/Rudolfo’s/Wildfish parklet), it is proposed to begin the curb extension effort with this parklet.

The temporary parklets on Lighthouse have been so successful that several long-term benefits to constructing permanent parklets have emerged:

A. Enhancing the character of Downtown
B. Improving walkability and bike ability of the commercial experience C. Improving visibility and safety of pedestrians
D. Improving drainage around the parklet
E. Facilitating street sweeping
F. Reducing maintenance demand in the right-of-way
G. Enabling a phased approach to permanent parklet installations The Traffic Engineer provided two concept options for the parklet at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain:

1. Construct Permanent Parklet with Curb Extension (see Attachments 1 and 2)

2. Retain Existing Temporary Parklet and Restripe Lighthouse Ave. (see Attachment 3).

For each concept option, the Traffic Engineer has offered the following narrative:

Concept ‘A’ Construct Permanent Parklet with Curb Extension:

Curb extensions are useful tools for enhancing public safety at intersections. Essentially, the curb and sidewalk are constructed into the parking area at a corner so that the pedestrian waiting to cross the PGCC 6-21-23

sidewalk are constructed into the parking area at a corner so that the pedestrian waiting to cross the street does not have their visibility limited by cars parked along the curb or other obstructions in the sidewalk area. In this specific case, the curb and sidewalk on the south side of Lighthouse Avenue on the eastbound approach to Fountain Avenue is proposed to be extended 10' into the parking area, which is currently consumed with a parklet for outdoor dining. The proposed curb extension would provide a new pedestrian landing on the southwest corner of Lighthouse Avenue and Fountain Avenue that would enhance the visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross Lighthouse, as well as enhancing the visibility of eastbound drivers on Lighthouse approaching the crosswalk. With a clear line of sight free of obstructions, drivers and pedestrians can see each other and promote safe crossing decisions.

Additionally, the curb extension would shorten the crosswalk by 10', which in turn reduces the exposure of pedestrians crossing Lighthouse Avenue. The proposed curb extension would also provide room for a 5' wide bike lane adjacent to the curb extension providing space for bicyclists. The eastbound travel lane would remain 12' wide.

The existing parklet would need to be removed to construct the new curb, gutter, and sidewalk that would extend 10' into the parking area. After the curb extension is constructed, a new parklet for outdoor dining could be constructed with the edge of the parklet set back two feet from the new curb.

The new parklet could be constructed in a more permanent way that could become a model for future outdoor dining areas in the sidewalk along Lighthouse Avenue.

Concept ‘B’ Retain Existing Temporary Parklet and Restripe Lighthouse Avenue:

The existing parklet remains in place in Concept ‘B’ and the eastbound through lane is restriped to add a 5’ bike lane to enhance the visibility for pedestrians crossing Lighthouse Avenue. In this concept the existing parklet that extends into the parking area by 12’ would not change. The eastbound through lane width on lighthouse Avenue would be reduced by 2’ from 12’ wide to 10’ wide. The existing 3’ wide buffer would be widened by 2’ to install a 5’ bike lane. The bike lane will displace eastbound traffic toward the center of the road, which will enhance the visibility of pedestrians crossing Lighthouse Avenue. Additionally, Concept ‘B’ adds a 12’ wide white stripe channelizing the eastbound right turn movement around the southwest corner at Fountain Avenue and delineating where northbound pedestrians crossing Lighthouse Avenue may stop to look for conflicting eastbound traffic coming from their left.

To move forward with either the permanent parklet with curb extension or temporary parklet with restriping concept options, City Council direction is needed.

Costs:

At its June 7, 2023, meeting the City Council allocated $50k for the design and construction of sidewalk extensions for outside dining uses as a new Capital Improvement Project during the first read of the FY 23-24 budget. In addition to the $50k allocation within the FY 23-24 budget, the Parklet Subcommittee recommends that the City either defer parklet reconstruction costs to the parklet licensee, or have the City fund the reconstruction costs for each parklet. A rough estimate of costs would be approximately $35-50k per parklet. The Parklet Subcommittee also recommends a phased approach. Due to the number of inquiries and concerns about the existing parklet at Lighthouse and Fountain (the current Victorian Corner/Rudolfo’s/Wildfish parklet), it is proposed to begin the curb extension effort with this parklet.

Estimated costs for restriping Lighthouse Avenue concept option are estimated to be $11k per travel lane.

PGCC 6-21-23

GOAL ALIGNMENT
Infrastructure
a. Enhance the process, prioritization, scheduling, and completion of CIP projects.

Complete Streets Policy: adopt a plan to implement the design of safe walking paths, sidewalks and bike lanes, including signage.
b.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

See Costs Section above.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Infrastructure
Attachments
1 Site plan - permanent parklet with curb extension
2 3D rendering - permanent parklet with curb extension
3 Site plan - temporary parklet with street restriping
PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

PGCC 6-21-23

Agenda No. 14 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Monterey One Water Presentation re Monterey County Tax Bill and Future Wasterwater Collection Fees
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.

Attachments
M1W PPT
PGCC 6-21-23

PROPOSED SEWER

BILLING CHANGE
Community Presentation & Feedback
PGCC 6-21-23

Proposed Change
New Vendor & Process
Current Billing Process
Vendor: AFTS
(private, third-party company)
Direct mailing of bi-monthly
customer bills for wastewater service
Management of Billing Data
M1W Customer Service Team
Proposed Billing Process
Vendor: Monterey County
(Tax-Treasurer Division)
Annual fee itemized on
Property Tax Bill
PGCC 6-21-23

Why?
Customer Experience
Current Limitations:
• No paperless billing
• No online account access
• Vendor printing errors
• Product support ending
Rate Structure
Mandated Service:
• Service cannot be turned off
• Same fee every month—
flat rate by type of use
• Common practice for
required service
Fiscal
$400,000 Annual Savings:
• Net savings from vendor
change
• Expanded field survey
program and billing accuracy
PGCC 6-21-23

SPRING/SUMMER 2023
Community Feedback
WINTER/SPRING 2024
Customer Notification
FALL 2023
Board Consideration
Proposed Timeline
Effective July 1, 2024
JULY 1, 2024
Bi-monthly Bills Stop
OCTOBER 2024
Sewer Fee Appears on Tax Bill
PGCC 6-21-23

Program Changes
Elimination of . . .
• Bi-monthly bills
• Monterey One Water Annual Lien Process
• Responsible Party Designation
What’s new . . .
• Annual billing to be paid over 1 or 2 payments
County is pursuing monthly payment option
(Easy Smart Pay) to provide option to pay Tax Bill
over 12 payments
PGCC 6-21-23

What won’t change . . .

Rate Setting Process
• Mailed notification + public hearing
Budget Approval
• Annual process including public hearing
Public Meetings
• Monthly Board of Directors Meetings are open
to the public
Commitment to
Transparency
PGCC 6-21-23

Program evaluation underway . . .

Considerations
• Available program funding
• Eligibility requirements
• Total credit per customer per year
• Opportunities to assist renters
Residential Customer
Assistance Program
PGCC 6-21-23

Future Outreach & Feedback

COMMUNITY FORUMS
Presentation and Discussion
• Virtually and in-person
• Details online and postcard to be sent
to customers

SUBMIT FEEDBACK
Share input on the proposed billing change
• Use our Online Form to submit your input
montereyonewater.org/billing-update
Wednesday, August 2 at 6:00 pm (Spanish Only)
Marina Branch, Monterey County Free Libraries
Tuesday, August 1 at 6:00 pm (English Only)
Marina Branch, Monterey County Free Libraries
2 AUG
1 AUG
20 JULY
18 JULY
Thursday, July 20 at 6:00 pm (Spanish Only)
El Gabilan Library, Salinas
Tuesday, July 18 at 6:00 pm (English Only)
El Gabilan Library, Salinas
PGCC 6-21-23