Pacific Grove City Council
July 5, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE

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

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

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

Historical Information 53
Projections 63
Pay Increase Analysis 77
Leaving CalPERS 85
PEPRA Cost Sharing 87
Irrevocable Supplemental (§115) Pension trust 89
Actuarial Certification 101
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 1

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

June 9, 2023 2

DEFINITIONS
 Target- Have money in the bank to cover Actuarial Liability (past service)  Unfunded Liability (UAAL or UAL) - Money short of target at valuation date  If all actuarial assumptions were always exactly met, then the plan assets would always equal AAL
 Any difference is the unfunded (or overfunded) AAL
 Every year, the actuary calculates the difference between the expected UAAL and Actual UAAL. This is a new layer or amortization base
 Each new layer gets amortized (paid off) over a period of time as part of the contribution [rate]
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 3

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

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

7.6%, respectively
PGCC 7-5-2023

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

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

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

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

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

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

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Safety
2%@55 2%@50 3%@55 3%@50
PEPRA 2%@57 PEPRA 2.5%@57 PEPRA 2.7%@57
PGCC 7-5-2023

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

June 9, 2023 10

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

Rate Initial Impact Full Impact
 6/30/16 valuation 7.375% 18/19 22/23
 6/30/17 valuation 7.25% 19/20 23/24
 6/30/18 valuation 7.00% 20/21 24/25
 In the November 2021 meeting, CalPERS Board adopted new  Discount rate and investment allocation
 Discount rate: 6.8% for 6/30/2021. UAL impact matches investment gain amortization (5-year ramp-up)
 Asset allocation has higher investment risk than current portfolio  Experience study (Demographic assumptions)
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 11

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

June 9, 2023 12

CALPERS CHANGES
Risk Mitigation Strategy
Likely Future Discount Rate/Investment Return Impact
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 13

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

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

June 9, 2023 14

POB ANALYSIS
POB Debt Service
(Amounts in $000’s)
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 15

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

June 9, 2023 16

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 17

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

June 9, 2023 18

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 19

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

June 9, 2023 20

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

60%
260%
460%
660%
860%
1060%
1260%
Miscellaneous UAL as % of Pay Safety UAL as % of Pay Total UAL as % of Pay Carmel-By-The-Sea Capitola Pacific Grove Seaside Gilroy Monterey Salinas Santa Cruz PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 21

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

June 9, 2023 22

UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 23

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

June 9, 2023 24

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - MISCELLANEOUS
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21
Actives 66 68 60 48 55 55 60 62 68 74 73
Receiving
Payments 140 111 119 125 132 132 133 136 137 140 144
-
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
160
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 25

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

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

June 9, 2023 26

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 27

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

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

June 9, 2023 28

FUNDED RATIO - MISCELLANEOUS
6/30/22 funded status estimated
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 29

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

June 9, 2023 30

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

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 31

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

June 9, 2023 32

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

June 9, 2023 33

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

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

June 9, 2023 34

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

Benefit Tier Count % 20/21 Payroll %
2%@60 FAE1 31 42.5% $2,682,454 52.2%
2%@62 FAE3 (PEPRA) 42 57.5% $2,454,391 47.8%
 Employee Cost sharing: 5% for classic members
 Projection includes City additional 3% pay increase @ 7/1/22, in addition to CalPERS salary assumption
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 35

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

June 9, 2023 36

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 37

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

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

June 9, 2023 38

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 39

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

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

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

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

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

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

June 9, 2023 40

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
2,044 2,068
2,243
2,432 2,597 2,754
3,044 3,179 3,302
3,485 3,580 3,685
510 585 591 597 613 640 658 676 695 714 733 753
1,534 1,483
1,652
1,836 1,984 2,114
2,386 2,502 2,607 2,771 2,846 2,932
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 41

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

June 9, 2023 42

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 43

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

33.4% 35.5% 37.8% 39.5% 41.0%

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

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

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

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

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

June 9, 2023 44

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - MISCELLANEOUS

2,893
1,918 2,100
2,296 2,468 2,632
2,928 3,069 3,198
3,387 3,488 3,600
510 585 591 597 613 640 658 676 695 714 733 753 849
(150) (143) (136) (129) (123) (116) (110) (104) (98) (92) (85) 1,534 1,483 1,652 1,836 1,984 2,114
2,386 2,502 2,607 2,771 2,846 2,932
-$500
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 45

FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS

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

June 9, 2023 46

FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 47

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

June 9, 2023 48

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

17 Projected payroll from CalPERS 6/30/21 reports
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 49

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

33.4%

35.5%

37.8%

39.5%

41.0%

44.4% 45.2% 45.9%

47.2% 47.3% 47.5%

51.7%

34.1%

36.4%

38.0%

39.8%

41.3%

44.8% 45.7% 46.3%

47.8% 47.8% 48.0%

51.7%

32.9%

35.0%

37.2%

39.4%

40.8%

44.1% 44.9% 45.6%

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

June 9, 2023 50

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

2,893
1,918 2,100
2,296 2,468 2,632
2,928 3,069 3,198
3,387 3,488 3,600
2,809
1,905 2,087 2,239 2,410 2,573
2,868 3,007 3,136
3,326 3,424 3,533
2,893
1,927 2,109
2,306
2,507 2,672
2,969 3,110 3,240
3,429 3,531 3,646
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 51

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS

51.7%

35.5%

39.5%

44.4% 45.9% 47.3% 47.2%

43.5%

32.8%

28.8%

23.0%

10.9% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2%

51.7%

36.4%

39.8%

44.8% 46.3% 47.8% 47.7%

44.0%

32.9%

28.7%

22.7%

11.1% 9.3% 9.3% 9.2% 9.2%

51.7%

35.0%

39.4%

44.1% 45.6% 47.0% 46.9%

43.2%

32.7%

28.8%

23.1%

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

June 9, 2023 52

PAY INCREASE ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS
2,893
2,100
2,468
2,928
3,198
3,488
3,677 3,580
2,849
2,644
2,233
1,117 1,007 1,062 1,121 1,183
2,809
2,087
2,410
2,868
3,136
3,424
3,606 3,517
2,777
2,564
2,141
1,107 978 1,031 1,088 1,149
2,893
2,109
2,507
2,969
3,240
3,531
3,723 3,627
2,897
2,698
2,287
1,116 1,027 1,083 1,143 1,207
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
Contribution Projection - $000s
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 (Base Case)
No Extra Pay Increase
3% Pay Increase on 2022/07/01 and 2% Pay Increase on 2023/07/01 With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 53

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

June 9, 2023 54

SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION - SAFETY
'11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21
Actives 22 19 16 16 19 15 17 22 20 21 18
Receiving
Payments 91 95 102 111 111 112 112 116 120 122 122
-
20 40
60 80
100
120
140
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 55

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

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

June 9, 2023 56

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 57

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

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

June 9, 2023 58

FUNDED RATIO - SAFETY
6/30/22 funded status estimated
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 59

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

June 9, 2023 60

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

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 61

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

June 9, 2023 62

CONTRIBUTION RATES - SAFETY
6/30/20 6/30/21
2022/202321 2023/2024
 Total Normal Cost 29.1% 32.0%
 Employee Normal Cost 11.1% 11.2%
 Employer Normal Cost 18.1% 20.8%
 Amortization Payments 93.8% 91.1%22
 Total Employer Contribution Rate 111.9% 111.9%
 2022/23 Employer Contribution Rate 111.9%
 6/30/17 Discount Rate & Inflation (5th Year) 1.2%
 6/30/18 Discount Rate change (4th Year) 1.8%
 6/30/21 Demog. Assumption change (1st
year, no ramp) 3.1%
 6/30/21 Risk Mitigation (Normal Cost change) 1.4%
 Other (Gains)/Losses mainly net investment gain -7.5%  2023/24 Employer Contribution Rate 111.9%
21 Different from slide 50. Contribution rate has been adjusted based on actual FY22/23 payroll. 22 Equivalent to 10.2% of UAL. One year, 6.8% interest on the UAL is 60.8% of payroll. 2023/24 amortization payment exceeds interest on the UAL, so there is no “negative amortization.” PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 63

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

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

June 9, 2023 64

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

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

2.7%@57 FAE3 (PEPRA) 9 50.0% 1,072,468 46.2%
 Employee Cost sharing: 3% for classic members
 Projection includes City additional 3% pay increase @ 7/1/22, in addition to CalPERS salary assumption
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 65

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

June 9, 2023 66

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
This page intentionally blank

PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 67

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

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

June 9, 2023 68

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 69

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

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

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

June 9, 2023 70

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
2,824 2,904 3,139 3,351 3,550 3,747
4,104 4,285 4,454 4,675 4,770 4,882
457 541 544 548 562 586 601 616 630 642 655 668
2,368 2,364 2,595 2,802 2,988 3,162
3,504 3,669 3,823 4,033 4,115 4,214
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost UAL Payment
Without EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 71

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

June 9, 2023 72

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
Contribution Projection – Percent of Pay
75th Percentile 50th Percentile 25th Percentile
With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 73

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

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

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

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

June 9, 2023 74

CONTRIBUTION PROJECTIONS - SAFETY

4,147 4,268 4,549 4,811 5,057 5,305
5,719
4,251 4,420 4,644 4,741 4,854
457 541 544 548 562 586 601 616 630 642 655 668
1,323 1,363 1,410 1,461 1,507 1,558 1,614
(35) (33) (31) (30) (28)
2,368 2,364 2,595 2,802 2,988 3,162
3,504 3,669 3,823 4,033 4,115 4,214
-$1,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 28/29 29/30 30/31 31/32 32/33 33/34 Contribution Projection - $000s
Total Normal Cost EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service UAL Payment With EE Cost-Sharing and POB Debt Service (50th Percentile) PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 75

FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY

June 9, 2023 76

FUNDED STATUS - SAFETY
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 77

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

25 Level dollar amortization over 20 years

June 9, 2023 78

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

26 Projected payroll from CalPERS 6/30/21 reports
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 79

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

June 9, 2023 80

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

June 9, 2023 81

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

86.9%

75.2%

59.1%

28.8%

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

88.1%

76.5%

59.6%

28.5%

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

85.8%

74.3%

58.0%

29.2%

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

June 9, 2023 82

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

June 9, 2023 83

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

June 9, 2023 84

COMBINED MISCELLANEOUS AND SAFETY
This page intentionally blank
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 85

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

June 9, 2023 86

LEAVING CALPERS
CalPERS Termination Estimates on June 30, 2021 (Amounts in Millions) Ongoing Plan Termination Basis
Discount Rate 6.80% 1.00% 2.25%
Miscellaneous
Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 62.5 $ 127.6 $ 109.5
Assets 47.8 47.8 47.8
Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 14.7 79.8 61.7
Funded Ratio 76.5% 37.4% 43.6%
Safety
Actuarial Accrued Liability $ 81.3 $ 181.5 $ 152.3
Assets 56.8 56.8 56.8
Unfunded AAL (UAAL) 24.5 124.7 95.5
Funded Ratio 69.9% 31.3% 37.3%
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 87

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

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

June 9, 2023 88

PEPRA COST SHARING
 Safety Plan 2023/24:

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

2.7%@57 FAE3
 Employer Normal Cost 27.1% 13.54%
 Member Normal Cost 9.0% 13.75%
 Total Normal Cost 36.1% 27.29%
 50% Target 18.1% 13.65%
 PEPRA Member Contributions:
2022/23 2023/24
Group
Total
NC
(Basis)
Member
Rate
Total
Normal
Cost Change
Member
Rate Method
Miscellaneous 13.74% 6.75% 15.43% 1.7% 7.75% PEPRA
Members
Safety 26.04% 13.00% 27.29% 1.2% 13.75% PEPRA
Members
PGCC 7-5-2023

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

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

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

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

PGCC 7-5-2023

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

June 9, 2023 96
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Miscellaneous
PGCC 7-5-2023

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

June 9, 2023 98
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety
PGCC 7-5-2023

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

June 9, 2023 100
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Supplemental Trust Balance ($000s)
50th Percentile
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 9, 2023 101

ACTUARIAL CERTIFICATION
This report presents analysis of the City of Pacific Grove ’s CalPERS pension plans. The purpose of this report is to provide the City:
 Historical perspective on the plan investment returns, assets, funded status and contributions.  Projections of likely future contributions and the impact of investment volatility The calculations and projections in this report are based on information contained in the City’s June 30, 2021 and earlier CalPERS actuarial valuation reports. We reviewed this information for reasonableness, but do not make any representation on the accuracy of the CalPERS reports.

Future investment returns and volatility are based on Foster & Foster Capital Market model which results in long term returns summarized on pages 25 and 55.

Future results may differ from our projections due to differences in actual experience as well as changes in plan provisions, CalPERS actuarial assumptions or methodology. Other than variations in investment return, this study does not analyze these.

To the best of our knowledge, this report is complete and accurate and has been conducted using generally accepted actuarial principles and practices. As members of the American Academy of Actuaries meeting the Academy Qualification Standards, we certify the actuarial results and opinions herein.

Respectfully submitted,
Doug Pryor, ASA, EA, MAAA
Foster & Foster, Inc.

DRAFT
Bianca Lin, FSA, EA, MAAA
Foster & Foster, Inc.

DRAFT
PGCC 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 12 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Purple Pipe Feasibility Study This item was continued from the Council's June 21, 2023 meeting.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Receive Report and Provide Direction.

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

DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove (City) constructed the Pacific Grove Local Water Project (LWP) and completed construction in 2017. The primary purpose of the project was to produce and distribute high quality recycled water to replace potable water, previously used for irrigation purposes. The LWP consisted of the construction of a sewer diversion structure, a 0.25 million gallons per day satellite recycled water treatment plant, pump station, force main pipeline, approximately 0.50 miles (2,800 linear feet (LF)) of 8-inch pipeline to convey recycled water to existing irrigation systems, connections to two public restrooms for toilet flushing, and onsite retrofits required for the use of recycled water.

The project can serve up to 125 acre-feet per year of recycled water primarily to the Pacific Grove Golf Links, Point Pinos Lighthouse and El Carmelo Cemetery. The predominant use of recycled water is for landscape irrigation.

Historically, the LWP has not maximized its production, producing less than 125-acre feet annually.

Not reaching the LWP capacity, has granted the potential for expansion of our distribution system of recycled water, though there are constraints and cost associated with expansion.

Through the City’s FY22/23 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council requested that Public Works investigate and prepare a report to determine the potential feasibility of expanding the LWP to areas that are available for irrigation. The attached technical memorandum (Attachment 1) investigates the feasibility of extending recycled water supply to Perkins Park, Lover’s Point, and Caledonia Parks from the LWP.

The technical memo (memo) evaluates the availability of the recycled water demand to expand to the three parks, construction costs associated with expansion to the parks, and wastewater flows that serve the LWP.

PGCC 7-5-2023

Recycled Water Demand for Expansion:

The three parks under evaluation for recycled water to be used for irrigation purposes are Caledonia, Lovers Point and Perkins Parks. These parks are located near the eastern end of the front nine holes of the Pacific Grove Golf Course where two potential connection points for the park expansion could occur (near the 7th and 6th tees of the golf course). The chart below shows the average historic water use for the parks. These figures illustrate that the annual irrigation use is minimal.

Location/Park Annual Average in gallons Annual Average in Acre Feet Caledonia 387,762 1.19
Lovers Point 713,613 2.19
Perkins Park 498,552** 1.53
* Average for years between 2016-2022
** Calculation is for 4 of the 5 meters at the park. The 5th meter has minimal use.

Construction Cost for Expansion:

Over the last few years construction cost have escalated quickly. To install a delivery pipeline costs would range between $140 -$250 per linear foot, depending on location (green space vs. Roadway) Location/Park Total length of Pipe Total Installation Cost Caledonia 700 LF $229,000
Lovers Point 1,480 LF $594,000
Perkins Park 2,555 $666,000
*Includes design, engineering, permitting, pipeline installation and connections points.

For comparison, installing and delivering recycled water to all 3 parks would cost about $16,000 per acre foot. Current costs for the use and delivery of potable water at the parks is approximately $7,500 per acre-foot, significantly more cost-effective.

Wastewater Flows:

The LWP was designed and constructed to produce up to 125 Acre Feet of recycled water annually.

The LWP operator has reported that during the early morning hours (1 AM to 6 AM) the flow in the sewer does not appear to be sufficient to maintain operation of the LWP at its design capacity. The City conducted flow testing in our main sewer trunk line where the sewer water is diverted for treatment. 2022 flow testing has determined that there is 10% more flow in the line compared to testing that was conducted in 2016, but flow between 2 am and 6 am is less than the minimum inflow required to produce during these hours. This is resulting in the plant not maximizing production and barley being able to produce enough recycled water for the current users, the golf course and cemetery.

Ultimately, the current plant inflow (which is the raw wastewater received to the plant) is not sufficient to produce reclaimed water to these additional three parks.

PGCC 7-5-2023

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
Staff PPT
Feasibility Study
PGCC 7-5-2023

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Purple Pipe
Feasibility Study
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 1 PGCC 7-5-2023

 PGLWP began producing in
reclaimed irrigation water in 2017
 Plant can produce up to
125 Acre Feet per year
 Current customers are golf
course, cemetery, lighthouse and truck fill
 Plant historically has not
reached production capacity
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 2
PGCC 7-5-2023

 CIP project to expand to nearby parks
 Staff proceeded with a feasibility study to determine available sewer flow and potential cost to expand services; Removing from potable to reclaimed  Three nearby parks:
 Caledonia Lovers Point  Perkins Park
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 3
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 4
* Average for years between 2016-2022** 4 of the 5 meters calculated. The 5th meter has minimal use Annual Average in Acre Feet*
Annual Average in Gallons*
Location/ParkCaledonia 387,762 1.19Lovers Point 713,613 2.19Perkins Park 498,552** 1.53** PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 5
Total Installation Cost*
Total Length of Pipeline
Location/Park
Caledonia 700 LF $229,000
Lovers Point 1,480 LF $594,000
Perkins Park 2,555 $666,000• Construction cost range between $140‐$250 per linear foot • Acre foot of delivered water would cost $16,000
• Potable currently at $7,500
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 6
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 7
From Lovers Point
Connection at Golf
Course and go down
Sea Palm
PGCC 7-5-2023

• 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 theseadditional locations; even if the inflow was at a rate to supportexpansion, the return on investment would not be actualized forover 30 years June 21, 2023 [email protected] 8
PGCC 7-5-2023

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Questions?
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 9
PGCC 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

bowmanconsulting.com
Figure 2-2 Lovers Point Park Historical Water Use
PGCC 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

bowmanconsulting.com
Table 2-5 Caledonia Park – Irrigation System Rates based on 4,500 gpd (average max month)
PGCC 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 12 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Safety Improvements at 5-way intersection This item was continued from the Council's June 21, 2023 meeting.

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 PGCC 7-5-2023

improvements to the SR68 Corridor within the Pacific Grove bounds. A total of $5 Million has been 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 PGCC 7-5-2023

Phase 4: Construction
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
PGCC 7-5-2023

Permitting
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.

PGCC 7-5-2023

As the City nears completion of Phase 1, Staff will work with the consultant to create a clear scope of 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
Staff PPT
Work Plan
Scope and Fee
PGCC 7-5-2023

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Safety Improvements
5-Way Intersection
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 1 PGCC 7-5-2023

 In 2016 City and TAMC conducted a study of Hwy 68 (CalTrans Jurisdiction)
 Intent was to identify safety improvements of corridor City hosted workshops in conjunction with Smart Growth America to discuss intersection
 Intersection is ripe for improvements with 2 schools nearby City entered into a funding agreement with TAMC for Measure X funding that is earmarked for Hwy 68 through PG
 Initial agreement is for 1 million
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 2
PGCC 7-5-2023

 Request for Qualification released in January of 2023  February of 2023 City received 2 proposals and
conducted interviews
 GHD was selected as the preferred consultant
 GHD has vast experience working with CalTrans
 GHD provided the City with a scope and fee that will
be used to guide the project
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 3
PGCC 7-5-2023

 Phase 1: Project Initiation Document (PID)
 Phase 2: Project Approval and Environmental
Document (PA&ED)
 Phase 3: Plans, Specifications, and Estimates
(PS&E)
 Phase 4: Construction
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 4
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 5
Alternative Analysis
• Data Collection• Purpose and need
• Outreach• Alternatives• Intersection safety
and performance
Preparation of PID
• Stormwater Data,
Enviro Analysis,
ROW
• Design Standards
Risk Assessment
• Preliminary Cost
Estimate
• Draft and final
project study report
Finalize Study Limits
• ROW and Topo
Surveys
• Project Description• Design
optimization
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 6
Technical Studies
• Traffic• Biology• Cultural• Storm water• Noise• Air Quality • Land use, Haz mat
• Geotechnical
Preliminary
Engineering
• 30% Plans
• Draft and Final
Project reports
Environmental
Documents
• Permitting• Public Outreach• Administrative Draft• Final Draft• Permitting PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 7
Right of Way Support
• Identify/ Minimize
Impacts
• Appraisals and
acquisition support
• Right of Way
Certificates
Plans, Specs and
Estimates
• 60%,90% and 100%
• Utilities ID• Relocation support
• Construction review
Bid Support and
Construction Oversite
• Bid Package• Bidder inquires• Compile results• Construction oversite • Support during
construction
• Post construction
reports
PGCC 7-5-2023

June 21, 2023 [email protected] 8
Construction $5-$7 Million
Phase 3$1.3 MillionPhase 2
$1.1 Million
Phase 1
$797,574
PGCC 7-5-2023

• Multi Year, multi million-dollar effort that will need to be executed in phases
• Phase 1 will identify the project and steps for future phases• Upon nearing completion of first phase, scope will be identified for phase 2
• Subsequent phase will be brought forth with scope and costing for Council approval
• City has $5 million earmarked for project through Measure X• Depending on intersection analysis, grant funding will need to be sought after
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 9
PGCC 7-5-2023

• 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 • Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 10
PGCC 7-5-2023

City Council
City of Pacific Grove
Questions?
June 21, 2023 [email protected] 11
PGCC 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

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 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 12 D

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Dara Sanders, Contract Planner and Ben Harvey, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Requests for Proposals for a Coastal Wildlife Protection Program CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the draft Requests for Proposals for finalization and publication.

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

DISCUSSION

BACKGROUND
In 2018, a Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee (CWPAC) was formed to advise the City Manager’s Office and the City Council on coastal wildlife protection needs and opportunities in Pacific Grove. The committee collaborated with the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission (BNRC), as well as local agencies and organizations, to identify needs and opportunities to protect coastal wildlife and their habitats and to prepare programmatic and regulatory recommendations to implement these needs and opportunities.

The CWPAC and BNRC presented their recommendations to the City Council on November 3, 2021, and a City Council subcommittee was formed to further consider those recommendations and prepare recommended actions to ensure the CWPAC and BNRC recommendations are properly implemented.

These recommendations include amendments to the City’s Local Coastal Program and the use of Community Service Officers to provide wildlife protection and code enforcement services citywide.

On December 21, 2022, the City Council considered the subcommittee’s recommended actions for protecting coastal wildlife and habitats, and the City Council voted to approve those recommended actions.

DISCUSSION
Staff has reviewed the CWPAC’s report and the City Council’s direction. In response to the CWPAC and BNRC recommendations and the City Council’s goals for citywide wildlife protection, staff recommends publishing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for local coastal program amendments and a RFP for establishing a Wildlife Protection Program, which would include educational program framework and the preparation of a consolidated ordinance of wildlife protection regulations and measures outside of the City’s coastal zone.

PGCC 7-5-2023

Staff’s recommendation to prepare RFPs rather than Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) is strategic for financial and timing purposes. RFPs allow the City Council to vet the qualifications of a consultant, their approach to fulfilling the City’s project needs, and the cost associated with their proposed approach. Moving forward with RFQs for these efforts leaves unknowns associated with cost and approach, which could result in additional time spent in contract, approach, and deliverables negotiations after a consultant is selected.

The City Council also directed staff on December 21, 2023, to prepare a report on the use of Community Services Officers (CSOs) for enforcement and enforcement activities associated with wildlife protection in Pacific Grove. Staff has interviewed cities and agencies with wildlife protection programs and their use of officers to inform staff’s report to the City Council on the needs and use of CSOs for this purpose. We received an account of the typical day-to-day activities associated with seasonal enforcement needs and the lessons learned through decades of enforcement, including public education tools that achieve better results than enforcement or punitive approaches.

Through these interviews, we learned that the successful implementation of activities for this position requires education, experience, and training that is distinctly different from a typical CSO; therefore, staff recommends including this report and the preparation of a corresponding job description as a deliverable for the RFP for establishing a city-wide Wildlife Protection Program.

Request for Proposals for Local Coastal Program Amendments Staff has attached a draft RFP seeking qualified individuals or firms to prepare local coastal program amendments that have been specifically identified in the City Council’s action. This draft RFP provides a summary of the CWPAC’s key recommendations for coastal wildlife protection to serve as a guide for responders in preparation of their proposals that may also include unidentified amendments that would further protect coastal wildlife and their habitats.

Proposals are also required to include a community outreach component and to account for management of the City’s adoption process and the California Coastal Commission certification process. Requiring this administrative support will ensure that these amendments are prepared, adopted, and certified in a timely manner with minimal impact to City staff’s ability to support our customers and daily City operations.

Request for Proposals for a City-wide Wildlife Protection Program The CWPAC report identified the need for a consolidated ordinance of wildlife protection regulations outside of the coastal zone, and the City Council’s subcommittee identified protection of wildlife and habitats as a citywide concern. Because of these identified needs and concerns, staff has prepared a companion RFP seeking qualified individuals or firms with an understanding of citywide wildlife and habitat protection regulations, programs, and public education. The intent of this companion project is to prepare a consolidated ordinance and to implement the programmatic and staffing recommendations of the BNRC, CWPAC, and the City Council’s subcommittee.

Proposals are also required to include a community outreach component to include coordination with the BNRC, community and environmental stakeholders, and the general public. Moving forward with securing the services of a consultant will ensure that these priorities are advanced through the development of a program with tested implementation measures and metrics in a timely manner with minimal impact to City staff’s ability to support our customers and daily City operations.

NEXT STEPS
RFP Publication
PGCC 7-5-2023

Both draft RFPs contain only proposal-specific information at this time. Should the City Council accept staff’s draft RFPs, we will include the general and legal language that accompany RFPs issued by the City of Pacific Grove. Once finalized, staff will post the RFPs to the City’s website and post them on other relevant websites to promote awareness of these efforts.

ADDITIONAL FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA
City Asset Stewardship

OPTIONS
The City Council’s options include the following:

1. Authorize City staff to publish both RFPs as written or with modifications; Authorize City staff to publish the RFP for Local Coastal Programs only as written or with modifications; or

2. 3. Defer action on these RFPs to a later date.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of these activities is unknown at this time. Staff has prepared RFPs that require proposals to include detailed information about the costs of the proposed scope of work. The City has over $700,000 in unprogrammed funds that could be used to advance this City Council goal. Once staff has received responses, staff will be prepared to provide a more detailed analysis related to fiscal impact for the City Council’s consideration.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
Attachments
1 Request for Proposals for Local Coastal Program Amendments 2 Request for Proposals for a Wildlife Protection Program and Consolidated Ordinance PGCC 7-5-2023

Request for Proposals
Local Coastal Program Amendments
The City of Pacific Grove, California, seeks the services of a professional consultant to prepare an amendment to the Pacific Grove Local Coastal Program (LCP). The scope of these amendments will include policies, regulations, and other implementation measures related to coastal wildlife and habitat protection from sea level rise and coastal development and the necessary environmental analysis required by the Coastal Commission to support the LCP amendment.

BACKGROUND
Pacific Grove is a coastal community sharing borders with the Monterey Bay, City of Monterey, Pacific Ocean, and the Del Monte Forest. Pacific Grove values its shoreline as an irreplaceable sensitive resource area, and its preservation as a natural living shoreline is a matter of public importance.

In March of 2020, the California Coastal Commission certified the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and approved several amendments in 2021. The primary objectives of the Pacific Grove LCP are to protect and maintain the City’s unique natural setting and character and to promote orderly development. As such, the LCP is a dynamic plan that must be amended from time to time to align with the City’s needs to protect sensitive natural resources and balance the impact of development, human activity, and the preservation of its living shoreline.

In 2019, the City assembled a temporary Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee, made up of local coastal resource and wildlife experts, to identify threats to important coastal wildlife. The Committee prepared a report for the City Council’s consideration of recommendations intended to strengthen policies and requirements for coastal wildlife protection, including several LCP amendments identified as essential to coastal wildlife protection. A summary of the committee’s recommendations are as follows:
• Decrease human disturbance by reducing access to rocky outcrops and sensitive wildlife breeding areas, both year-round or seasonally, especially in the “Areas of Special Interest” (see Attachment A).
• Remove problematic non-native plans in coastal areas and replace them with native plans, essentially extending the restored Asilomar State Beach dunes and rocky shore habitat north and northeast along the Pacific Grove shoreline.
• For coastal development, use soft engineering alternatives (beach nourishment, dune restoration, and etc.) described in the 2012 Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay instead of hard engineering approaches (seawalls and riprap) where practicable. • Replace lost coastal wildlife habitat through habitat restoration with the goal of no net loss of habitat.
• Move major infrastructure (roads, sewer lines, utilities) farther inland from City shorelines in a managed retreat from sea level rise.

PGCC 7-5-2023

• Consolidate the various City regulations related to wildlife and natural habitat protection and prepare additional protective measures to complete one comprehensive ordinance. • Support existing coastal interpretive programs and community science programs and/or implement additional stewardship and docent programs that foster public understanding and commitment for conservation measures that preserve the City’s native coastal wildlife. • Establish and fund a conservation officer and/or dedicated wildlife commission for planning, promoting, executing, and monitoring progress of City strategies for preserving and optimizing the unique coastal wildlife and associated habitats that characterize the City’s shoreline.

The City has published a separate but companion RFP seeking qualified individuals or firms with an understanding of citywide wildlife and habitat protection regulations, programs, and public education.

This companion project will implement the programmatic and staffing recommendations of the City’s Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee regarding wildlife and habitat protection. It is expected that the wildlife and habitat protection program to be created through the companion RFP will include applicable enforcement and public education activities for coastal wildlife and habitat protection in the coastal zone.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Pacific Grove seeks a qualified individual or firm with an understanding of coastal development regulations and local coastal program amendments for approval by the California Coastal Commission. This project will include the following services:
1) Project management and coordination, including coordinating with the California Coastal Commission and the consultant selected to develop a city-wide wildlife and habitat protection program;
2) Identification of impact topics to be addressed in the LCP; 3) Preparation of draft amendments to the City’s LCP;
4) Community outreach and input;
5) Preparation of final amendments to the City’s LCP;
6) Management of the City LCP amendment approval process and California Coastal Commission certification process, including preparing staff reports, presentations, and associated correspondence;
7) Maintenance of an administrative record of all research performed, correspondence (written, verbal, and electronic), project notes, meeting notes, and other documentation; and 8) Staff training on amendment implementation.

The required work products expected and the number of copies of each required by the City are as follows:

Work Product Number of copies
Final Scope of Work 1 Word + 1 PDF
Draft LCP Amendments 1 Word + 1 PDF
Public Outreach Plan 1 Word + 1 PDF
Final LCP Amendments 1 Word + 1 PDF
Administrative Record Electronic/scanned Files
PGCC 7-5-2023

PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM
A preliminary work plan has been developed for this RFP to assist in the preparation of a more complete proposal that addresses the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s report (Attachment A).

Proposals must include this information at a minimum, and proposers may include additional recommendations in their approach to the work that would mitigate threats to coastal wildlife and the implement the recommendations of the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee. At this time, it is expected that the following issues will be addressed in the LCP amendment:

Implementation Plan. Expand implementing actions to carry out the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s goals, policies, and recommendations pertaining to coastal wildlife protection. Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Natural Systems and Resource Management. Develop strategies to minimize and mitigate coastal bluff erosion and sea level rise. Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Water and Marine Resources. Add specificity with respect to buffer zones, ecological integrity, restoration of natural systems, and protection of marine and aquatic resources. Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Scenic Resources. Update to show additional scenic areas identified by the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee. Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Amend to address habitat and biological sensitivity and develop policies to guide the City in protecting Pacific Grove’s biodiversity.

Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Built Environment. Require visual access to coastal and scenic resources. Update existing and prepare new graphics, maps, and exhibits as appropriate.

Shoreline Management Plan. Develop and apply for California Coastal Commission approval of a shoreline management plan that implements Land Use Plan policies HAZ-6, INF-24, and PRA-4.e.

Miscellaneous. Develop recommendations and policies to respond to the following coastal wildlife disturbances or hazards:
• Light pollution and bird strikes
• Pond and creek water quality
• Black oyster catcher protection protocol
• Other measures that advance the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s recommendations

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
All proposals shall include the following minimum information:

Cover letter. Indicate interest in and commitment to performing the above services for the City of Pacific Grove. Include contact information (physical address, phone number, and email address) for the primary person responsible for the proposal and serving as the primary contact for the City on correspondence PGCC 7-5-2023

and communications. The cover letter should also summarize the key points of the consulting firm’s interests and qualifications.

Relevant Experience. List projects completed by the consultant relevant to the scope of services contained herein that have been completed in the last seven (7) years. Discuss the firm’s experience to best perform these services for the project, and provide at least one sample of similar work in electronic format prepared by the consultant or staff assigned.

Project Approach, Scope of Work, Timeline, and Deliverables. Describe the strategy for achieving the goals and deliverables of the project. Include a detailed scope of work, noting applicable deliverables identified in the RFP Preliminary Work Plan. Outline the proposed approach to services contemplated, including a general timeline demonstrating successful completion of the services.

Estimated Fee and Budget. Provide a fee schedule with the hourly billing rates for each proposed team member and a budget estimate. Include all direct and indirect costs and transportation fees. The budget estimate shall be organized and broken down by each task outlined in the scope of work.

Attachments
Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances dated January 15, 2020 Temporary Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee (CWPAC) Report CWPAC Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendments to Implement PGCC 7-5-2023

Request for Proposals
Coastal Wildlife Protection Policies, Regulations, and Program The City of Pacific Grove, California, seeks the services of a professional consultant to:
1) Prepare a consolidated Wildlife and Natural Habitat Protection Ordinance to include the City’s Municipal Code; and
2) Develop a framework for a Wildlife Protection Program to include a protection plan, program development phasing, measurable benchmarks, monitoring, enforcement, staffing, and public education activities.

BACKGROUND
Pacific Grove is a coastal community sharing borders with the Monterey Bay, City of Monterey, Pacific Ocean, and the Del Monte Forest. Pacific Grove values its shoreline as an irreplaceable sensitive resource area, and its preservation as a natural living shoreline is a matter of public importance.

In March of 2020, the California Coastal Commission certified the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and approved several amendments in 2021. The primary objectives of the Pacific Grove LCP are to protect and maintain the City’s unique natural setting and character and to promote orderly development. As such, the LCP is just one of many tools the City’s needs to protect sensitive natural resources and balance the impact of development, human activity, and the preservation of its living shoreline.

In 2019, the City assembled a temporary Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee, made up of local coastal resource and wildlife experts, to identify threats to important coastal wildlife. This temporary Committee collaborated with the City’s Beautification and Natural Resources Commission to prepare a report (Attachment A) for the City Council’s consideration of recommendations intended to strengthen policies and requirements for wildlife protection with an emphasis on coastal wildlife and habitat protection. A summary of the committee’s recommendations are as follows:
• Decrease human disturbance by reducing access to rocky outcrops and sensitive wildlife breeding areas, both year-round or seasonally, especially in “Areas of Special Interest”. • Remove problematic non-native plans in coastal areas and replace them with native plans, essentially extending the restored Asilomar State Beach dunes and rocky shore habitat north and northeast along the Pacific Grove shoreline.
• For coastal development, use soft engineering alternatives (beach nourishment, dune restoration, and etc.) described in the 2012 Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay instead of hard engineering approaches (seawalls and riprap) where practicable. • Replace lost coastal wildlife habitat through habitat restoration with the goal of no net loss of habitat.
• Move major infrastructure (roads, sewer lines, utilities) farther inland from City shorelines in a managed retreat from sea level rise.

PGCC 7-5-2023

• Consolidate the various City regulations related to wildlife and natural habitat protection and prepare additional protective measures to complete one comprehensive ordinance. • Support existing coastal interpretive programs and community science programs and/or implement additional stewardship and docent programs that foster public understanding and commitment for conservation measures that preserve the City’s native coastal wildlife. • Establish and fund a conservation officer and/or dedicated wildlife commission for planning, promoting, executing, and monitoring progress of City strategies for preserving and optimizing the unique coastal wildlife and associated habitats that characterize the City’s shoreline.

The City has published a separate but related RFP seeking qualified individuals or firms with an understanding of coastal development regulations to prepare local coastal program amendments. These amendments will implement the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s report and recommendations regarding disturbances and hazards to coastal wildlife and habitats in the City’s coastal zone. It is expected that this program will include applicable enforcement and public education activities for coastal wildlife and habitat protection in the coastal zone.

SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Pacific Grove seeks a qualified individual or firm with an understanding of wildlife and habitat protection regulations, programs, and public education. This project will include the following services:
1) Project management and coordination, including with the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission, Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee, and the consultant selected to prepare the local coastal program amendments;
2) Identification of all existing city, county, and state wildlife protection regulations; 3) Preparation of a draft program and draft consolidated wildlife protection ordinance outside of the coastal zone;
4) Preparation of a comprehensive report describing the use of Community Service Officers to provide wildlife protection, code enforcement services, and public educational services throughout the entire city, as well as the desirable education and experience of well-qualified individuals to fulfill these duties;
5) Community outreach to include coordination with the City’s Beautification and Natural Resources Commission, community and environmental stakeholders, and the general public; 6) Preparation of a final program and consolidated wildlife protection ordinance outside of the coastal zone;
7) Management of the program and consolidated ordinance approval process, including preparing staff reports, presentations, and associated correspondence;
8) Maintenance of an administrative record of all research performed, correspondence (written, verbal, and electronic), project notes, meeting notes, and other documentation; and 9) Staff training on the program and ordinance requirements.

PGCC 7-5-2023

The required work products expected and the number of copies of each required by the City are as follows:

Work Product Number of copies
Final Scope of Work 1 Word + 1 PDF
Draft program and ordinance 1 Word + 1 PDF
Public Outreach Plan 1 Word + 1 PDF
Final program and ordinance 1 Word + 1 PDF
Administrative Record Electronic/scanned Files

PRELIMINARY WORK PROGRAM
A preliminary work plan has been developed for this RFP to assist in the preparation of a more complete proposal that addresses the Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee’s report (Attachment A).

Proposals must include this information at a minimum, and proposers may include additional recommendations in their approach to the work that would mitigate threats to wildlife city-wide and implement the recommendations of the Beautification and Natural Resources Commission and Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee. At this time, it is expected that the following issues will be addressed in the development of a consolidated ordinance and a wildlife protection program with particular emphasis on activities in the coastal zone:

Ongoing Disturbance of Wildlife. Develop policies, regulations, and appropriate enforcement measures (including documentation and penalties) to mitigate adverse impacts to wildlife caused by a variety of human impacts, including feeding wildlife, drone/aircraft activities, domestic pets, beachgoers, watercraft, noise, and unlawful resource extraction.

Pollution. Develop policies, regulations, and appropriate enforcement measures (including documentation and penalties) to protect wildlife from threats related to pollution, including food waste, cigarettes, plastic, domestic pet waste, and city infrastructure systems.

Protection of Species. Develop policies, regulations, and appropriate enforcement measures (including documentation and penalties) to protect plant and animal species under frequent or constant threat by development, foot traffic, non-native plant species, and other threatening activities.

Problematic Species. Develop policies, regulations, and a removal workplan framework to mitigate impacts of non-native plants and nuisance wildlife. Regulations are expected to include a prohibited planting list for private property.

Areas of Special Interest. Develop policies, regulations, and appropriate enforcement measures (including documentation and penalties) tailored to the specific habitat protection needs of six areas of special interest – Hopkins Marine Station, Lover’s Point, Point Pinos, the Great Tidepool, Asilomar North, and Asilomar South.

Protection Plan. Develop a wildlife protection program that establishes appropriate processes and procedures for measuring program success, monitoring and enforcing activities (such as a citation appeal process), updates to the City’s wildlife protection regulations, and staffing needs for program implementation and enforcement.

Program Staffing. Develop a report identifying the education, experience, and skillset necessary to implement and enforce wildlife protection throughout the entire City, including the coastal zone. This PGCC 7-5-2023

report should consider the limited staff resources and budget constraints of the City. Ideally, staffing would include the use of Community Service Officers to for implementation and enforcement in the short-term with an opportunity to create a position dedicated solely to this Program.

Public Education and Outreach. Identify appropriate public education needs, approaches, and methods to promote awareness of human impacts to Pacific Grove’s wildlife and habitat diversity and protection needs. Approaches and methods could include signage, interactive exhibits, classroom and library education, volunteer opportunities, etc.

PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
All proposals shall include the following minimum information:

Cover letter. Indicate interest in and commitment to performing the above services for the City of Pacific Grove. Include contact information (physical address, phone number, and email address) for the primary person responsible for the proposal and serving as the primary contact for the City on correspondence and communications. The cover letter should also summarize the key points of the consulting firm’s interests and qualifications.

Relevant Experience. List projects completed by the consultant relevant to the scope of services contained herein that have been completed in the last seven (7) years. Discuss the firm’s experience to best perform these services for the project, and provide at least one sample of similar work in electronic format prepared by the consultant or staff assigned.

Project Approach, Scope of Work, Timeline, and Deliverables. Describe the strategy for achieving the goals and deliverables of the project. Include a detailed scope of work, noting applicable deliverables identified in the RFP Preliminary Work Plan. Outline the proposed approach to services contemplated, including a general timeline demonstrating successful completion of the services.

Estimated Fee and Budget. Provide a fee schedule with the hourly billing rates for each proposed team member and a budget estimate. Include all direct and indirect costs and transportation fees. The budget estimate shall be organized and broken down by each task outlined in the scope of work.

Attachments
Temporary Coastal Wildlife Protection Advisory Committee (CWPAC) Report CWPAC Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendments to Implement Local Coastal Program
Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances dated January 15, 2020 PGCC 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 12 E

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Small Business Recovery Action Plan
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the attached recommended implementation plan, and provide staff with direction for action items of interest.

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

DISCUSSION
At the City Council Meeting on December 7, 2022, staff was directed to provide additional details pertaining to the Small Business Recovery Action Plan (SBRAP) recommendations, including cost and timeline for implementation. Staff prepared a plan for implementation with the additional components and brought it to the Economic Development Commission (EDC) at its May 11, 2023 meeting. The EDC approved the recommendations, except for the Shop Local Digital Gift Card Program. The resulting comprehensively revised implementation plan is attached for the City Council’s review, and direction for any action items of interest.

The City Manager, The Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce and HdL feel that the Shop Local Digital Gift Card Program deserves an audience in front of the City Council. Accordingly, the Shop Local Digital Gift Card Program will be brought separately for City Council consideration at the July 19, 2023 meeting.

The implementation plan included with this report outlines the SBRAP’s recommended action items along with several recommendations made by the City Council in December 2022. The implementation plan includes the following:

1. Recommended action items
Recommendation status (complete, in progress, or not started) & timeline (1-time event, monthly, quarterly, or ongoing)

2. Start date / budget or fiscal year (If the item has not yet begun, start date and budget or fiscal year are anticipated)

3. 4. Funds required
Action item lead(s) (including City staff, Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Commission, and HdL Companies)

5. PGCC 7-5-2023

6. Additional notes and descriptions of the recommended action item Staff asks that the City Council review the attached EDC-revised implementation plan and associated funding requirements and direct staff to proceed with action items of interest. Alternatively, the City Council could discuss the attached implementation plan and direct staff to take action on matters related to this item.

OPTIONS

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact in receiving the report; should the City Council to proceed with action items of interest, corresponding funds required for each action item is listed within the implementation plan attachment to this agenda report.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
SBRAP Implementation Items
Small Business Recovery Action Plan
PGCC 7-5-2023

Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan – Implementation Items Updated 6/27/2023
Action Item Status &
timeline
Start date /
Budget year
Funds
required
Lead(s) Notes / Description

1. Establish one-day/ week
Economic Development
Coordinator
Complete
Ongoing
7/1/2022
FY 22-2023
$0 Laurel Laurel O'Halloran was designated as the ED Coordinator in late 2022 and dedicates Wednesdays to this work. Review at end of FY 2023 to determine need to expand the position.

2. Monthly business spotlight
at EDC meetings
In progress
Monthly
10/1/2022
FY 22-2023
$0 Chamber,
City, EDC
Chamber of Commerce has been inviting businesses to join the monthly EDC meetings as part of a Business Spotlight Program.

This program helps the EDC understand successes and
challenges for local businesses. Reports on the monthly spotlights will be given to the City Council in the form of the EDC Meeting Minutes as part of the consent agenda.

3. Launch Economic
Development webpage
(www.PickPG.org)
Complete
Ongoing
11/1/2022
FY 22-2023
$5,000
(already
spent)
Nikita, EDC,
Chamber
Website launched in 2022 and will be continuously monitored and updated by the City and Chamber (available property listing). The website will serve as a resource center for existing and potential businesses. EDC budgeted for marketing site.

4. Move EDC costs into one City
Department (Economic
Development)
Complete 3/1/2023
FY 22-2023
$0 Ben Request by City Council – a distinct line item for Economic Development related costs was created for the City Budget

5. Hold quarterly broker
luncheons
In progress
Quarterly
3/30/2023
FY 22-2023
$750 Ben & Laurel,
HdL
Q1-2023 luncheon was held 3/31/2023. 14 people joined,
including 7 real estate professionals (3 of which are brokers), 1 economic development professional from California State University of Monterey Bay, 3 council members, 2 EDC
members, the Chamber president, as well as Ben & Laurel.

Luncheons will be planned quarterly based on availability of local brokers. Council Members will be included (3 per
meeting) on a rotating schedule.

6. Quarterly Economic
Development reports Council
Not Started
Quarterly
Q1-2024
FY 23-2024
$0 Ben, Laurel,
HdL
Starting Q1-24, the City Manager will do a quarterly Economic Development update to Council.

7. Initiate a business visitation
program
Not started
Monthly or
bi-monthly
Q1-2024
FY 23-2024
$0 Ben & Laurel,
Chamber, EDC
Schedule 1-2 business visits per-month or bi-monthly, rotating the focus each month. Introduce city staff to business owners, get ahead of any issues, talk about success / challenges.

Potential to set up a request page on PickPG.org for businesses to request a visit.

PGCC 7-5-2023

Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan – Implementation Items Updated 6/27/2023
Action Item Status &
timeline
Start date /
Budget year
Funds
required
Lead(s) Notes / Description

8. Create restaurant event
series
Not started
1 event per
year
Q2-2024
FY 23-2024
- Ben & Laurel,
HdL, local
restaurants,
Chamber
HdL is going to bring a restaurant series or restaurant week concept to the EDC in Summer 2024 for consideration. The last restaurant week occurred in June 2019. Additional research is needed on potential funds required. A future restaurant series could be bundled with a shop local digital gift card program promotion, explained below.

9. Launch a shop local digital
gift card program (Yiftee)
with a Buy-One-Get-One
(BOGO) free component
Not started
Ongoing
Q1-2024
FY 23-2024
$30,000 Ben & Laurel,
HdL, Chamber
Concept review agenda report scheduled for City Council review 7/19/23.

10. Continue the Parklet
program
In progress
Ongoing
FY 22-2023 $0 City Council
Subcommittee
At 6/21/2021 Council Meeting, the City Council continued the City Council subcommittee allocated funding for infrastructure improvement and requested initiation of design engineering effort.

11. Continue Storefront &
Parklet Façade Improvement
Program
In progress
1 event per
year
FY 23-2024 $25,000 Laurel,
Planning
Commission
Continue to provide 5 or more up to $5,000 grants per year, consider increasing program amount to offer more grants or more money for same amount of grantees. Parklets are now included in façade improvement grant program.

12. Create a music series event Not started
1 per year
Q2-2024
FY 2023-24
$15,000 Ben & Laurel,
Chamber,
KRML
Concept review agenda report forthcoming to EDC.

13. Explore vacant storefront
activation program &
continue researching RFI
In progress
Ongoing
FY 2023-24 $0 HdL, City, EDC HdL and City continuing to search for angel tenant to support master lease for maker’s space.

14. Design new shop Pacific
Grove street pole banners
Not started Q2-2024
FY 23-2024
$25,000 Chamber, Ben
& Laurel, HdL
HdL to complete additional research to take recommendation to EDC, then Council. The City has 69 total banner poles (4 missing the horizontal brackets to hold the poles). The City has a calendar for placement on Lighthouse, but there are poles on Central, Forest, and David not included in this. Sunset has no banner poles. The Chamber has worked with Mary Trucksis for banners, 12/2022 fabric banners pricing up 50%. Design
banners in preparation for 2024 release. Banners to last for 6- 10 years. $25K would cover banner costs, installation, and broken bracket repair
PGCC 7-5-2023

Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan – Implementation Items Updated 6/27/2023
Action Item Status &
timeline
Start date /
Budget year
Funds
required
Lead(s) Notes / Description

15. Monterey trolley to
Downtown Pacific Grove
Additional research required. Ben & Laurel to lead.

Council Member Colletti to bring concept review agenda report in Q1-2024.

16. Capital Improvement
Projects for downtown PG
Additional research and estimates for downtown infrastructure repairs and improvements. Consider sidewalks, tree wells.

Ben, Laurel, & HdL to research.

PGCC 7-5-2023

1 City of Pacific Grove, CA
Small Business Recovery Action Plan
Development Driven by Data
ECONSolutions by HdL
120 S. State College Blvd., Ste 200
Brea, CA 92821
www.hdlcompanies.com
www.ECONSolutionsbyHdL.com
PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 2

OBECTIVE
HdL Companies prepared this Small Business Recovery Action Plan (SBRAP) to provide an understanding of how the COVID-19 Pandemic impacted Pacific Grove’s local businesses, and how Pacific Grove can assist and guide local small businesses in their recovery. In 2020, the HdL ECONSolutions Division of HdL Companies drafted an Economic Recovery Action Plan (ERAP) in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, which provided recommendations to help the local economy near the start of the Pandemic. Since the preparation of the 2020 ERAP, there have been several different strands of COVID-19, vaccines were made available to most of the public, and cities have been attempting to adapt to a “new normal.” Because of these changes over the last few years, the SBRAP examines data from pre-pandemic through current day, Pacific Grove’s fiscal year 2022, ending June 30, 2022, and it gives an overview of the impacts that Pacific Grove and the Monterey County region have experienced during this time period. HdL also recommends a variety of realistic and achievable action items to help Pacific Grove’s small businesses recover from short and long-term impacts experienced from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
The City of Pacific Grove’s population is 15,256, which makes up 3.5% of the total population of Monterey County.

Pacific Grove has a lower daytime population than nighttime, at 13,535, indicating that a portion of residents work outside of the city limits. There are 7,155 households, with an average household income of $121,517. Pacific Grove’s average household income is 18% higher than the Monterey County household income. The average age of Pacific Grove residents is 46.1, and about 56% of residents have a college degree or above.

Pacific Grove’s Business Community
In addition to understanding local demographics and market analytics, the existing makeup of a local business community can help identify opportunities and challenges present in a community. The City of Pacific Grove hosts a diverse business community with small, locally owned retail stores, markets, and restaurants, as well as professional services such as real estate, legal/attorneys, accountants, and management consulting. There are also a number of well-known retail employers, such as Lucky, Subway, Trader Joe’s, Safeway, Rite Aid and Domino’s Pizza.

Pacific Grove has a few popular and successful shopping areas including a wide variety of retailers and restaurants in Downtown Pacific Grove (located on Lighthouse Avenue) and Fairway Shopping Center (located on Forest Avenue). These centers provide a nice variety of retailers that are authentic to the city, allowing for consumers to obtain exclusive goods and exceptional services.

Another successful and prominent business feature within Pacific Grove is the many bed and breakfast inns that are available to individuals who wish to vacation within the beautiful community. Considering many of these establishments are historic Victorian Style Homes, with many within walking distance of both the Downtown and Ocean View Boulevard, customers are receiving an unforgettable lodging experience.

Sources: datausa, city-data.com, census.gov, City of Pacific Grove, scag.ca.gov, Zillow.com, redfin.com INSIGHT Market Analytics PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 3

The American Tin Cannery was once a lively shopping center with a variety of retail stores for residents and visitors to see, though many of the stores have closed over the last several years. In 2021, a developer proposed a significant redevelopment project, referred to as the American Tin Cannery hotel project. This proposed project would redevelop the nearly 6-acre American Tin Cannery shopping center into a 225-room, two-wing, four-star hotel. The space would include 20,000 square feet of retail, a restaurant, and lounge and meeting spaces. In January 2022, the project was approved by the Pacific Grove City Council with a 6-1 vote, however, the California Coastal Commission halted the project due to an appeal by two of the commissioners. As of September 2022, there has not been a date released for the consideration of the appeal of the American Tin Cannery hotel project, and therefore the timeline for the project is unknown at this time.

THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
The COVID-19 Pandemic will have broad and long-lasting impacts, as it accelerated and amplified many existing trends and conditions. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a Pandemic.

California State Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20 (Stay-at-Home Order) was issued about a week later on March 19, 2020, requiring all Californians to stay home or at their place of residence, except for certain workers who were deemed essential. COVID-19 has caused significant and direct impact to nearly every aspect of people’s lives, including the physical, social, and economic well-being of California cities, residents, and especially businesses. During most of 2020 and throughout 2021, impacts of the Pandemic and the necessary shelter in place orders included severely limited economic and social activities, surging unemployment claims, declines in revenue from sales tax, transit occupancy (hotel) tax, and other local government revenues. Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and the aforementioned actions taken by local, state, and federal officials to protect health and promote safety, there has been dramatic shifts in social and lifestyle perspectives.

Downtown Pacific Grove American Tin Cannery
Fairway Shopping Center
PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 4 As of late September 2022, 11.23 million COVID-19 cases have been confirmed and reported in the State of California with a death toll of over 95,000. Monterey County had over 114,000 confirmed cases and 783 fatalities.

As of Spring 2021, COVID-19 vaccinations were made available. By September 2022, nearly 85% of California residents have received at least one vaccine shot, and 74% have been fully vaccinated and many have received booster shots. The vaccinations are said to significantly decrease adverse reactions to COVID-19, yet almost 26% of California residents have yet to be fully vaccinated. To analyze the impact that COVID-19 has had on the local Pacific Grove economy, the following examines unemployment rate and job losses, housing stock and prices, as well as changes in general consumer activities. Source: https://covid19.ca.gov/ Unemployment Rate, Housing Prices, and Consumer Price Index There are approximately 4,300 jobs situated in the City of Pacific Grove. As of August 2022, the Pacific Grove unemployment was at 4.9%, which is nearly one-third the rate in August 2021 (7.1%) and almost half of the rate in August 2020 (9.4), indicating that employment rates are doing much better than the first two years of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The home index values rose 19% from July 2021 to July 2022, and the average median home price listing from January to August 2022 is around $1.4 million. The Pacific Division (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington) Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 7.6% from August 2021 to August 2022. The CPI is a measure of the average change in prices over time in a fixed market basket of goods and services, and an increase reflects price inflation.

Business Impacts
Due to a variety of reasons, many businesses experienced continued or periodic closures into 2022 after the necessary 2020-2021 closures for health and safety. Businesses throughout California saw a drop in sales of products and services that may have lasting impacts. Sales tax revenues have mostly gone back up to prepandemic numbers in 2022 throughout California, but that is not a clear indicator of how well small businesses are recovering.

Common economic influences across tax generating groups, outside of the necessary stay at home orders, include the shift to online-shopping, supply chain disruptions, manufacturing slowdowns and employment/labor shortages. Additionally, local businesses have been impacted by higher labor and raw material costs along with inflationary pressures that drive taxable goods prices upward. Small, locally owned businesses were some of the hardest hit businesses, particularly restaurants and retailers, by the aforementioned economic influences. A large number of small, independently owned businesses are not back to pre-pandemic cash flow and required revenue margins.

SALES TAX REVENUE
HdL is a leading sales tax consultant in the State of California (including for Pacific Grove), and we are continually tracking trends that will affect sales tax revenue for the nearly 400 local governments that we serve. In January 2022, HdL Companies released their 2021 Consensus Forecast for California Sales Tax Trends and Economic Drivers, examining sales tax for seven major industry groups. The change in consumer activity and the “new normal” that were exacerbated by COVID-19 had a negative impact on sales tax revenue for California cities in 2020 and 2021. However, by the end of early 2022, there was an increase in sales tax throughout the State of California.

Sources: scag.ca.gov, Zillow.com, redfin.com INSIGHT Market Analytics PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 5 In June 2022, HdL released a consensus forecast using quarter 1-2022 sales tax data. Notably, taxable sales continue to expand in 2022, despite high inflation, rising interest rates, and lower consumer sentiment. High percentage increases also continue to reflect the rebound effect as the State of California recovers from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Statewide, ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic impacts such as supply chain disruptions, manufacturing slowdowns and employment shortages had, and continue to have, a significant effect on sales tax revenue. Consumer trends have also impacted sales tax revenue due to the aforementioned COVID-19 impacts, a shift in lifestyle perspectives, and growing opportunity for online merchandise.

City of Pacific Grove Sales Tax Revenues
The City of Pacific Grove’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Sales Tax Revenue increased 22.6% from FY 2020-21 ($1.6 and $1.3 million, respectively). Pacific Grove did experience decreases in sales tax revenues during the Pandemic, with a 7.2% decrease in sales tax revenue for FY 2020-21 compared to 2019-20, and a nearly 10% decrease in sales tax revenues from FY 2018-19 to 2019-20.

The decreases experienced during the COVID-19 Pandemic were likely due to the impacts of the temporary and permanent business closures and lack of business and leisure travel that occurred in 2020 and 2021, along with supply chain and manufacturing disruptions and employment/labor shortages. The FY 2021-22 total sales tax revenues were 3% higher than pre-pandemic revenues in FY 2018-19. Overall, there was a 12% increase in sales tax revenues from FYs 2017 to 2022.

Major Sales Tax Producing Industry Groups
The total sales tax revenue for FY 2021-22 (excluding State and County Pools) was $1.6 million. The top five of seven major sales tax producing industry groups in Pacific Grove include:

1. Restaurants and Hotels: $565,807

2. Building and Construction: $393,504

3. Food and Drug: $253,702

4. General Consumer Goods: $198,231

5. Fuel and Service Station: $161,580
$1,464,804
$1,522,484
$1,591,297
$1,439,105
$1,335,197
$1,637,474
$- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
FY 2016-17
FY 2017-18
FY 2018-19
FY 2019-20
FY 2020-21
FY 2021-22
Total Sales Tax Revenue for Pacific Grove
FY 2017-2022
PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 6

1. Restaurants & Hotels: $565,807
Restaurants & Hotels make up the biggest percentage of Pacific Grove’s sales tax revenue, at 34.6%. For this category, Pacific Grove experienced a 50% increase in sales tax revenues by the end of FY 2022, after seeing a 23% decrease from 2020 to 2021. Some restaurants saw an increase in revenues from 2020 to 2021 ranging from 5% to over 50%, while others continued to see a decrease. Higher rates of business and tourist travel will keep the growth rate high for 2021-2022.

Quick service and casual dining establishments are the dominant tax-producing segments within the general restaurant industry, which likely won’t change in the near future. In Pacific Grove, casual dining, fine dining, and quick service restaurants, and fast-casual restaurant locations make up 31.8% of all sales tax revenues. Of the top 25 sales tax producing businesses listed below, 11 fall within a restaurant business type category.

2. Building & Construction: $393,504
Building & Construction is the second largest sales tax producer in Pacific Grove, making up 24% of total sales tax revenues. By end of 2022, Building & Construction sales tax revenues increased by 16% from 2021. Sales tax revenue from Building & Construction was seemingly only slightly affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic as there was just a 2% decrease from 2019 to 2020 and then sales tax revenues for the industry category increased by 10% from FY 2020 to 2021. This could likely be related to several larger construction projects, such as the condo building at 520-522 Lighthouse Ave. Building & Construction tax revenues are forecasted to flatten across the State in in in late 2022 followed by moderate growth thereafter.

3. Food & Drug: $253,702
The Food & Drug industry makes up 16% of Pacific Grove’s sales tax revenue; revenues for Pacific Grove have stayed relatively consistent in Pacific Grove, though the 2022 revenues were only a few $100 greater than revenues in 2021. Statewide, the Food & Drug category has shown modest improvement since 2020, around a 1% increase. Consumers are moving towards shopping for groceries and medicine with apps, changing the way that sales tax is distributed. This trend is projected to continue, thus investment in digitized solutions, low cost delivery options, and inventory optimization could help merchants maintain the bottom line and offset price pressures.

4. General Consumer Goods: $198,231
Retailers were negatively impacted during 2020, leading to a decrease in General Consumer Goods sales tax revenue. Pacific Grove experienced a 6.8% decrease in revenue from general consumer goods from 2020 to 2021.

HdL estimates a nearly 12%
increase in revenues in FY 2022 as
tax revenues showed an increase
in late 2021. However, as
consumer behavior and
technology shift more to ecommerce, the outlook for place of sale transactions Statewide
should be subdued. The cost of
taxable goods is expected to rise
faster than sales, and tax receipts
could revert to the conventional
growth rate of 1-2%.
1%
24%
3%
15%
10%
12%
35%
Major Business Categories as a Percent of Total Sales Tax Revenue in Pacific Grove
Auto and Transportation
Building and Construction
Business and Industry
Food and Drug
Fuel and Service Station
General Consumer Goods
Restaurant and Hotels
PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 7

5. Fuel & Service Stations: $161,580
Fuel & Service Station sales tax revenues increased by 30% from 2021 to 2022, as prices and demand for fuel has significantly increased with an increase in business and leisure travel. California gas prices reached a high $6.30 in June 2022, though prices have since gone down statewide by about $1. Pacific Grove’s Fuel & Service Station revenues decreased by less than 1% in FY 2021. Short-term gains are projected as more people are travelling for work and pleasure. This is anticipated to be followed by long-term annual escalations of 2%. 6&7. Business & Industry and Auto & Transportation
The Business & Industry and Auto & Transportation groups make up only a small portion of the total sales tax revenue for Pacific Grove. The Business & Industry makes up only 2.7% of overall sales tax revenue for Pacific Grove, and Auto & Transportation makes up 1.2%. There was a 48% increase from FY 2021 to 2022 for Business & Industry, but only a 1.3% increase for Auto & Transportation. Auto & Transportation tax revenues do not greatly impact Pacific Grove as this category makes up a small percentage of total tax revenues. The Business & Industry category in Pacific Grove had the largest decrease in sales tax revenue of 27.4% for FY 2021 versus 2020 as the state was, and continues to, struggle with Pandemic-related challenges like raw material and qualified worker shortages. Fulfillment centers heavily influenced growth through online sales and the continued shift of taxes from countywide pools to agencies with these in-state facilities.

Top 25 Sales Tax Producing Businesses
(listed in alphabetical order)
 Ace Hardware
 Asilomar Conference Center
 Beach House at Lovers Point
 Fandango
 Fishwife
 Forest Hill Shell
 Grill at Point Pinos
 Hayward Lumber
 Home Lighter
 Il Vecchio
 International Cuisine
 Julia's Vegan & Vegetarian Restaurant
 Lucky
 Mum's Place
 One Stop Chevron Gas & Food Mart
 P G 89 Smog & Auto Repair
 Pacific Grove Shell
 Passionfish
 Peppers Mexicali Café
 Rite Aid
 Safeway
 Trader Joe’s
 Visions Design Center
 Vivolos Chowder House
 Wild Fish Restaurant
The FY 2022 top 100 sales tax producers in Pacific Grove, representing 94.36% of all sales tax producers, increased by 26% from FY 2020-21. The following businesses make up the top 25 sales tax producing businesses in Pacific Grove, which represents about 62% of total sales tax revenues. The top 25 businesses fall into the top five major sales tax producing industry groups, including:
 Restaurant & Hotels (12): Casual dining, fine dining, food delivery/catering  Building & Construction (3): Building materials, plumbing/electrical supplies, contractors  Food & Drug (5): Grocery stores, drug stores
 General Consumer Goods (1): Home furnishings
 Fuel & Service Station (4): Service stations
PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 8

PACIFIC GROVE LOCAL RECAP
Pacific Grove City staff and Chamber of Commerce representatives have spoken with a variety of businesses over the past 2 ½ years and many have echoed the sentiments heard throughout the State of California regarding challenges and opportunities experienced as a consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Business owners in Pacific Grove are seeing the effects of supply chain disruption through delays of shipping goods; timeframes of delivery are not back to normal, causing disruptions to local businesses’ abilities to operate as they normally would. Additionally, costs have risen exponentially for products. While sales tax numbers are getting back to pre-pandemic levels, the high cost of doing work is hurting businesses. Some local businesses are continuing to experience staffing issues. For example, some are experiencing a lack of good staffing. Some are having issues with staff shortages; scheduling staff is unpredictable and if one staff person calls in, it is challenging to cover shifts effectively. Additionally, it has been a challenge to recruit and fill qualified management positions. Specifically, candidates chosen for management positions from outside of the area decide not to take a job due to housing prices and availability, making recruitment difficult.

There were several local attempts to hold virtual job fairs, but there was little attendance and participation.

While businesses are certainly experiencing hardships, there were a few actions that the City and the Chamber of Commerce took in the last year or so that were helpful to local businesses. The City implemented a Façade Improvement Grant Program in which businesses could apply for up to a $5,000 reimbursement to make improvements to their storefront. There were two phases of the program and funds were drained rapidly as businesses jumped at the opportunity for financial assistance to make improvements to their buildings. The city also streamlined a parklet program during the Pandemic in order to help restaurants expand their outdoor dining.

Lastly, now that the COVID-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans are finished, Employee Retention Tax Credits (ERTC) are stepping up to help businesses financially. The Chamber is working with their partners at the Monterey County Business Council (MCBC) on identifying Pacific Grove businesses that would be good candidates for these funds.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS RECOVERY
Cities must proactively work with their small businesses to successfully assist local businesses to recover from the significant challenges they have encountered as a consequence of the COVID-19 Pandemic. The following are realistic and achievable recommendations for Pacific Grove to consider in helping their business communities to recover in the short and long-term.

1. Establish a 1-day/week Economic Development Coordinator. This has already been completed within the FY 2022-23 budget. The City Planner has been designated as the Economic Development Coordinator and began holding “Business Wednesdays” each week in August 2022. This position will focus their time on “all things business” that day and reserve the planning functions for the other days of the week. To gauge effectiveness of the 1-day/week Economic Development Coordinator, we recommend tracking time spent on the economic development related projects and at the end of the first year evaluating if more time is needed or the 1-day is still sufficient.

2. Launch a dedicated Economic Development webpage (URL: PickPG.org), in partnership with the Pacific Grove Chamber, and with input from the Economic Development Commission, to launch by end of 2022. The website should be continuously monitored and updated with relevant information to help existing businesses thrive and to seamlessly invite potential businesses into the community.

PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 9

3. Continue the City’s Façade Improvement Program. The Economic Development Commission should budget money for the Façade Improvement Program annually and continue to monitor the program guidelines to keep it as successful as it has been and more.

4. Continue the City’s successful Parklet Program. The city streamlined permits for the Parklet Program due to the need to allow for additional outdoor seating at restaurants. It’s recommended that city staff bring updated standards to the City Council for approval by end of 2022.

5. Create a music series event for 2023 in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce. Some of the more successful downtowns in the State of California host events, such as music, that bring residents and visitors into the community. This works especially well when local businesses can be involved in the planning to maximize the visibility for businesses.

6. Create a restaurant event series for 2023 in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and local restaurants. This could be in the form of two or three seasonal restaurant week events, or a wine or beer walk.

There was an active Pacific Grove Restaurant Week website and Facebook Page, but neither have been updated since 2019 and 2021, respectively. It appears that the last restaurant week was in 2019, more than a year before the Pandemic. Now that restaurants are able to stay open, and many Pacific Grove restaurants have expanded outdoor dining options, this would be a low-effort way to support and promote local restaurants in Pacific Grove.

7. Create a Shop Local program, including a Digital Gift Card program with Yiftee to assist small independently owned local businesses. Yiftee worked with more than 100 of California local governments to build a Digital Gift Card program to encourage people to shop at small, locally owned businesses. Many local governments are using American Rescue Plan Act funds to add bonus programs. This has proven to be extremely successful, though not required to create the program.

8. Design Shop Pacific Grove banners to be installed in Downtown Pacific Grove and the Fairway Shopping Center on Forest Avenue. This is a popular and effective placemaking effort that helps create a sense of place in a city or a specific commercial district. The moderate California climate helps with the longevity of the banners, as well, making it so they only need to be changed out every few years or so.

9. Initiate a Business Visitation Program to have the City Manager, Economic Development Coordinate/City Planner, and Chamber of Commerce CEO and Chairperson of the Economic Development Commission visit two businesses a month to discuss business challenges and opportunities. A Business Visitation Program would help the City stay up to date on challenges and opportunities that local businesses are actually facing.

Ideally this would be a meeting at the various businesses throughout the City, however one positive that came out of the COVID-19 Pandemic is the ease of virtual meetings to encourage the continuation of the monthly meetings with business owners and managers.

PGCC 7-5-2023

www.hdlcompanies.com  714.879.5000
December 2022 City of Pacific Grove Small Business Recovery Action Plan 10

10. Hold regular Broker Luncheons for City Staff, the Chamber of Commerce, and an Economic Development Commission representative to meet quarterly with local commercial real estate brokers and property owners.

Similar to the goal of the Business Visitation Program, a quarterly Broker Luncheon would help the city and Chamber of Commerce stay up to date on challenges and opportunities that local brokers, property owners and managers, and real estate professionals are dealing with. These meetings also serve as a unique opportunity for city staff and Chamber representatives to update the groups on projects and programs that may be related to their work.

11. Continue to explore vacant storefront activation programs, including the creation of a Makers Space or Craftsman Collective in a vacant storefront in Downtown Pacific Grove. Use the information gathered from the Request for Information from Small Businesses, Artists, Makers, Entrepreneurs & Commercial Property Owners/Leaseholders Interested in a “Makers Space” or “Craftsman Collective” released in August 2022 to help inform the process. However, since there were limited responses mainly coming from potential small businesses, we recommend doing additional outreach to private leaseholders/developers to gauge interest in type of program.

TRANSFORMING NEXT STEPS INTO ACTION ITEMS
Businesses throughout the State of California have been greatly impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the City of Pacific Grove’s business community is no exception. While sales tax revenues are rising above pre-pandemic revenues, that is not the only indicator of a healthy local economy. The recommendations above are meant to be realistic and achievable, with proper planning and implementation, in helping the small, locally owned business community recover from the effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic. While all of the recommendations should be considered, the list should be prioritized to identify steps that the City can take in transforming some of the recommendations into action items within the near to short term (6-months to 1-year).

Timeline Recommended Action Items
November 2022  Launch dedicated Economic Development webpage (URL: PickPG.org) December 2022  Staff to bring Parklet Program standards to City Council for review and consideration  Plan and prepare for 2023 quarterly Broker Luncheon events January 2023  Draft and submit plan for a Music and Restaurant Event series in 2023 or 2024  Budget and design the installation of banners in Downtown PG and Fairway Shopping Center February 2023  Establish a schedule for Business Visitation Program to be started immediately March 2023  Host Quarter-1 2023 Broker Luncheon event
June 2023  Host Quarter-2 2023 Broker Luncheon event
July 2023  Begin evaluation of 1-day/week Economic Development Coordinator position, including time spent on economic development projects, to determine if more time is needed September 2023  Host Quarter-3 2023 Broker Luncheon event December 2023  Host Quarter-4 2023 Broker Luncheon event  Evaluate programs and consider expanding in 2024
PGCC 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 13 A

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Chaps Poduri, Councilmember
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Energy Savings Assessment & Resiliency
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Direct Engie Services U.S. to Perform an Integrated Energy Savings Assessment of City-Owned Building for Potential Solar Photovoltaic System Implementation, and Grant Fund Sourcing.

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

DISCUSSION
Massive power outages have affected residents over the course of the past few months. This has underscored the need for alternative and resilient energy sources.

Council goals align with environmental stewardship and climate action and adaptation is a primary goal of the present council.

Engie’s business model is the development and implementation of turn-key energy savings projects.

The utility savings generated from the project is used to offset the cost of the project while providing realized savings. Engie performs the grant funding research and sourcing, development, design, construction, and performance guarantee of energy projects.

Engie had previously performed an assessment for the City in 2015. This agenda item is to restart the 2015 conversations, take into considerations new forms of renewable sources and storage needs that are in the market today and develop a plan for the future thereby addressing community, council and environmental needs.

The energy assessments are performed with no cost to the City. Following the assessment, the Council can evaluate whether the City wishes to retain Engie for future services.

OPTIONS
PGCC 7-5-2023

1. Take no action.

2. Provide alternate direction.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact in adopting a resolution with Engie Services U.S. to proceed with a no-cost energy and facilities assessment of all City-owned facilities.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: Infrastructure
Attachments
Engie Services Resolution
PGCC 7-5-2023

RESOLUTION NO. 23-xxxx

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DIRECT ENGIE SERVICES U.S. TO PERFORM AN INTEGRATED ENERGY SAVINGS ASSESSMENT OF CITYOWNED BUILDINGS FOR POTENTIAL SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM

IMPLEMENTATION, AND GRANT FUND SOURCING
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove desires to become more energy sustainable through the reduction of costs of meeting the energy needs of its building facilities; and
WHEREAS, ENGIE Services U.S. is an energy services and solutions company with the technical and management capabilities and experience to perform an integrated energy assessment and to identify energy conservation solar photovoltaic measures; and WHEREAS, City desires ENGIE Services U.S. to perform an energy savings assessment on city-owned facilities, and to deliver recommendations identifying electrical energy improvements for potential installation at these building facilities as well as perform the grant sourcing which may be used to offset the cost of such projects; WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the energy savings assessment and the recommendations is to provide an engineering and economic basis for the potential implementation of energy-saving solar photovoltaics identified in the recommendations; and WHEREAS, based on the outcome of the energy savings assessment, at a near-future City Council meeting staff may bring forth for City Council's consideration a recommendation to proceed with an energy savings project agreement with ENGIE Services U.S for the implementation of such energy-saving measures.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove authorizes the City Manager to direct ENGIE Services U.S. to perform an integrated energy savings assessment of City-owned building facilities for potential solar photovoltaic system implementation, and grant fund sourcing.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Pacific Grove, held on the 5th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
PGCC 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 13 B

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ben Harvey, City Manager
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: City Public Information and Community Engagement through Social Media CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report, and provide direction to City staff regarding the City Public Information and Community Engagement through Social Media effort.

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

DISCUSSION
What is City public information and community engagement through social media? City public information is community and municipal news, public safety updates, clarification, data, records and documents related to City services, programs and offerings provided to the public. The City strives to engage the community through social media to generate awareness, interest and involvement in a transparent and accessible manner. Social media is used as one of the primary platforms to accomplish this sharing of information and engagement of the community.

Examples of City public information and community engagement through social media for 2023 are attached to this agenda report.

Why is the use of social media for public information and community engagement important to the City of Pacific Grove?
Public Information through social media allows for direct engagement with the public.

Information is pushed out through social media channels such as Facebook and Instagram directly into public feeds that are available via smartphone, tablet and/or personal computer.

Using social media for public formation provides the City of Pacific Grove with the capability for real-time dissemination of information. In times of emergency, or unfolding/updating situations, information and updates may be posted instantly, providing immediate public updates. It does not require printing, posting or refreshing a website or email inbox.

City social media channels create forums allowing the City to receive feedback. The public is able to enter comments and ask questions about information that is published. The City is able to immediately view these comments and questions and reply (if appropriate), add to the information that is posted, or modify the message accordingly.

The City of Pacific Grove's public information is presented alongside other important sources PGCC 7-5-2023

when posted on social media. The Federal Government, State Government, Monterey County, regional special districts, etc. all post public information on social media.

The public may easily share information obtained on social media; messages are more easily spread to a greater audience.

Social media posts may be as finite or infinite as desired; graphics, videos, images, charts, graphs, etc. are easily shared to better illustrate information, advise of a problem or situation or offer a demonstration of a solution. "Deep dives" for additional information on a topic are easily handled through an accompanying URL.

Social media public information posts allow for flexibility and adaptability; messages may be quickly modified to respond to an updated circumstance.

One of the City Council's Core Values is Collaboration. The City Council pledges to promote transparent engagement with citizens and stakeholders and expect our managers and consultants to understand the needs and values of our community.

A little under half (48%) of U.S. adults say they get news from social media “often” or “sometimes”. Pew Research
More than eight-in-ten U.S. adults (86%) say they get news from a smartphone, computer or tablet “often” or “sometimes”, including 60% who say they do so often. Americans turn to radio and print publications for news far less frequently, with half saying they turn to radio at least sometimes (16% do so often), and about a third (32%) saying the same of print (10% get news from print publications often). Reference: Pew Research How does the City currently manage its public information and community engagement effort through social media?
From February - June 30, 2023, the City was under contract with Tripepi Smith to manage all aspects of public information and community engagement through social media. Prior to that, the City relied upon the part-time oversight of its public information and community engagement effort through social media via the efforts of the former Police Administrative Services Manager/Public Information Officer.

As of the date that this report is presented to the City Council, the City no longer is under contract with Tripepi Smith. The only public information and community engagement through social media is through occasional de-centralized efforts from the Police, Library and Recreation departments/functions as their respective staff and workload allows for items specifically germane to those City departments/functions (Police, Library and Recreation information, services and program offerings).

What options does the City have to manage its social media effort going forward, and what are the anticipated timelines and costs?
Contracting with a firm or individual: This option would allow for subject matter expertise, knowledge of industry best practices, bandwidth for quick turn-around for updates, and robust monitoring. It would also allow the City to avail itself of graphic design services, public information expertise and relevant experience from other local governments. The expense of contracting with an individual or firm for this function is estimated to be approximately $70,000 - $100,000/annually. The anticipated timeline for selecting this option and implementing a solution could be as short as 30 days (it will require City Council action).

Hiring a full-time employee: This option would allow for a dedicated City employee to oversee the function. There would be some limitations to monitoring and updates (based upon the employee's work schedule), and the City would incur an additional full-time head count expense (salaried employee with full benefits). This would require the hiring of a Management Analyst classification (or higher); an estimate for the annual cost including benefits would be approximately $150,000. The anticipated timeline for selecting this option and implementing a solution will require approximately 90-120 days, allowing for City Council authorization of a position, recruitment, interview, selection, background and onboarding processes.

PGCC 7-5-2023

Hiring a part-time employee: This option would allow for limited functional oversight, monitoring and updating. This would require the hiring of a 20-hour/week Management Analyst (non-benefitted); an estimate for the annual cost would be approximately $50,000. The anticipated timeline for selecting this option and implementing a solution will require approximately 90-120 days, allowing for City Council authorization of a position, recruitment, interview, selection, background and onboarding processes. This option presents concerns as to the availability of qualified candidates (in other words, the City may not be able to fill this role with a part-time position).

Taking no action: This option would leave the City with limited public information and community engagement through social media, with occasional updates only coming from the Police, Library and Recreation functions as staffing and workload allows, for items that are germane to their specific functions only.

OPTIONS
Direct City staff to return with a professional services agreement for Tripepi Smith for public information and community engagement through social media.

1. Direct City staff to launch a request for proposal (RFP) effort for public information and community engagement through social media, and return to City Council with a recommendation.

2. Direct City staff to propose the addition of a full-time or part-time City staff member to oversee the City's public information and community engagement through social media effort.

3. 4. Propose alternate direction.

5. Take no action.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact in receiving the report and providing City staff with direction to return for potential future City Council consideration and action.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
City Public Information and Community Engagement through Social Media Examples 2023 PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

PGCC 7-5-2023

Agenda No. 13 C

CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: League of California Cities (LoCC) Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate(s)
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss, designate, and adopt by resolution a voting delegate and up two alternates to represent the City on policy matters at the League of California Cities (LoCC) Annual Conference on September 20-22.

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

DISCUSSION
At its June 7, 2023 meeting, Council adopted by resolution City Council Policy 000-29 setting forth an annual process for selecting a voting delegate and up to two alternates to attend the LoCC Annual Conference, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the City.

The League of California Cities will hold its 2023 Annual Conference from September 20-22, in Sacramento, California. During the conference business meeting, the authorized delegate from the City may represent the City’s interests to vote on and approve League policy. The delegate shall attend the conference to represent and vote on behalf of the City of Pacific Grove. If the selected voting delegate cannot attend, the designated alternate may exercise voting authority.

The League requires each city seeking to vote on matters to authorize by resolution its Mayor or other elected officials to formally represent the city, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the city.

Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy. Policy issues are determined annually by the League Board in late summer at which time staff will return to Council for direction to the voting delegate/alternate(s).

OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:

PGCC 7-5-2023

Funding for City Council conference attendance and travel was allocated for within the adopted Fiscal Year 23-24 budget.

FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.

Attachments
1 2023 Voting Delegate Packet
2 Proposed Resolution
PGCC 7-5-2023

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 2023
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023, Sacramento SAFE Credit Union Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Sept. 22, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Please complete the attached voting delegate form and email it to Cal Cities office no later than Monday, August 28.

New this year, we will host a pre-conference information session for voting delegates to explain their role. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide preconference communications with voting delegates.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council.

Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Council Action Advised by August 28, 2023
PGCC 7-5-2023

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center in Sacramento, will be open at the following times:

Wednesday, Sept. 20, 8:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 21, 7:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 22, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Monday, Aug. 28. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly PGCC 7-5-2023

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

PGCC 7-5-2023

CITY: ________________________________________
2023 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Monday, August 28, 2023.

Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the General Assembly, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the General Assembly. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the voting delegate desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _______________________________
Email: ______________________________

3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name:

Title:

Email: _____________________________

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk: ________________________ Date: __________ Phone: ________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and email this form to [email protected] by Monday, August 28, 2023.

PGCC 7-5-2023

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference and
Expo, Cal Cities members
may submit policy
proposals on issues of
importance to cities. The
resolution must have the concurrence
of at least five additional member cities
or individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions
Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure that we are representing California cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policy that erodes local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how Resolutions and the General Assembly works.

The petitioned resolution
is an alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during the
annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of member
cities, and submitted to the Cal Cities
President at least 24 hours before the
beginning of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities President
assigns general resolutions
to policy committees where
members review, debate,
and recommend positions for
each policy proposal. Recommendations are
forwarded to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions
Committee includes
representatives from
each Cal Cities diversity
caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly
is a meeting of the
collective body of
all voting delegates —
one from every
member city.

Seven Policy
Committees meet
throughout the year to
review and recommend
positions to take on
bills and regulatory
proposals. Policy
committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division,
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee.

Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also
considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a
member-informed
process, grounded
in the voices and
experiences of city
officials throughout
the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions Committee
considers all resolutions.

General Resolutions approved1
by either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee
are next considered by the General
Assembly. General resolutions not approved,
or referred for further study by both a policy
committee and the Resolutions Committee
do not go the General Assembly. All
Petitioned Resolutions are considered by the
General Assembly, unless disqualified.2
• Voting delegates will receive increased communications to prepare them for their role during the General Assembly.
• The General Assembly will take place earlier to allow more time for debate and discussion.
• Improvements to the General Assembly process will make it easier for voting delegates to discuss and debate resolutions.

What’s new in 2023?
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

PGCC 7-5-2023

1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC

GROVE APPOINTING A VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE TO

THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE

FINDINGS

1. The City of Pacific Grove is a full voting member of the League of California Cities (League);

2. The League takes positions on matters affecting cities throughout the state, including but not restricted to sponsoring legislation, taking joint positions on pending legislation, the placing voters’ initiatives on the ballot;

3. The Board of Directors of the League of California Cities places matters for the cities’ collective consideration on the agenda for the business meeting at the League’s annual conference;

4. The League requires each city seeking to vote on those matters to authorize by resolution its Mayor or other elected officials to formally represent the city, participate in the business meeting, and vote on behalf of the city;

5. This resolution is in accordance with, and does not conflict with, existing City laws and regulations and applicable Government Code provisions, and

6. This action does not constitute a “Project” as that term is defined under the California Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 as it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

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

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

2. The City of Pacific Grove hereby appoints _______________ as voting delegate with ______________ and _______________ as alternate voting delegates to the League of California Cities annual conference in Sacramento, California.

3. The City of Pacific Grove City Clerk, or designee, is authorized to inform the League of the above appointments.

4. This resolution shall take effect immediately following passage and adoption.

PGCC 7-5-2023

2 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 7 th day of July, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:

DATED:____________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 7-5-2023