CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, July 5, 2023, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.
THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
877 853 5247 (Toll Free)
888 788 0099 (Toll Free)
669 900 9128
699-219-2599
Webinar Meeting ID: 692 219 855#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Comments from the public will not receive Council action. Comments must deal with matters on the Closed Session agenda and will be limited to three minutes
1. Written Closed Session Public Comment
A. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957)
Title: City Manager Performance Evaluation
PGCC 7-5-2023
ADJOURNMENT
PGCC 7-5-2023
CITY COUNCIL
AMENDED REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, July 5, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA The Council will not begin consideration of any item on this agenda later than 10:00 p.m. unless such consideration is approved. Any items on this agenda not considered this evening will be continued to a future meeting.
Copies of the agenda packet are available for review at the Pacific Grove Library, in the Finance Department, and electronically at www.cityofpacificgrove.org/agendas. The most effective method of communication with the City Council is by sending an email to [email protected]. In order to allow the City Council adequate time to review communication related to an agenda item, it is recommended that the communication be sent no later than 9:00 AM on the day prior to the City Council meeting.
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
PLEASE NOTE THE MEETING WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL EVEN IF THERE ARE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ACCESSING ZOOM.
THE CITY WILL DO ITS BEST TO RESOLVE ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE PUBLIC MAY ALSO VIEW THE MEETING ON PENINSULA CHANNEL 25.
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
To participate telephonically, call any number below:
888 788 0099 US (Toll-free)
877 853 5247 US (Toll-free)
669 900 9128
669 219 2599
Webinar ID: 209 579 290#
If prompted to enter a participant ID, press #.
Help Line 831-648-3128
MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
The public may also view the meeting on the Peninsula Channel 25.
AMENDED AGENDA
PGCC 7-5-2023
AMENDED AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Coletti
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Mayor's Proclamation: Recognizing Dr. Ralph Porras PAGE 11 Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Receive presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
B. Other
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General Public Comment must deal with matters subject to the jurisdiction of the City and the Council that are not on the Regular Agenda. This is the appropriate place to comment as to items on the Consent Agenda, only if you do not wish to have the item pulled for individual consideration by the Council. Comments from the public will be limited to three minutes and will not receive Council action. Comments regarding items on the Regular Agenda shall be heard prior to Council’s consideration of such items at the time such items are called. Whenever possible, written correspondence should be submitted to the Council in advance of the meeting, to provide adequate time for its consideration.
A. Written General Public Comment
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Receive written public comment, if applicable.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
CONSENT AGENDA
PGCC 7-5-2023
CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda deals with routine and non-controversial matters, and may include action on resolutions, ordinances, or other public hearings for which testimony is not anticipated. The vote on the Consent Agenda shall apply to each item that has not been removed. Any member of Council, staff, or the public may remove an item from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration. When items are pulled for discussion, they will be automatically placed at the end of their respective section within the Regular Agenda. One motion shall be made to adopt all non-removed items on the Consent Agenda.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business A. Minutes of the June 21, 2023 Special and Regular Meetings and the June 23, 2023 Special Closed Session Meeting PAGE 14
Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: Approve minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business
7. ORDINANCES
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 11. Public Hearings A. Ordinance to Amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) PAGE 26 Reference: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
Recommended Action: Hold a second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to modify the salary range for Police Officer and Police Sergeant and approve the amendment.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section
2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution PAGE 30 Reference: Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
Recommended Action: Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business PGCC 7-5-2023
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
Items pulled from this section will be placed under 12. Unfinished and Ongoing Business or 13. New Business A. PW Temporary Trailer Ratification (PW Fire) PAGE 34
Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action: Ratify the trailer rental with Williams Scotsman, Inc., by approving a resolution, for the Public Works Admin Office temporary trailer rental in the amount of $44,440 plus a 5% contingency, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.16.080, Bidding Procedures-Dispensation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Professional Planning Services with Good City Company PAGE 38 Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Recommended Action: Authorize an agreement not to exceed $75,000 for professional contract planning services with Good City Company.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. FY23/24 CIP Engineering Services Action required by July 5, 2023. PAGE 101 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
Recommended Action: Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Tree Maintenance Service Agreement Action required by July 5, 2023. PAGE 103 Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action: Authorize an agreement with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties and facilities in an amount not-to-exceed $220,000 per fiscal year, with the option to extend the agreement for 4 additional years
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. September 20 Meeting Cancellation PAGE 105
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action:
1. Cancel September 20, 2023 Council Meeting.
2. Other action as directed by City Council related to this subject.
PGCC 7-5-2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
F. Appointment to Recreation Board PAGE 106
Reference: Bill Peake, Mayor
Recommended Action: Approve appointment of A. Gamble to Recreation Board ending January 31, 2027.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES Items pulled from this section will be placed under 13. New Business A. Museum Board Minutes: May 10,August 9, November 8, 2022, and February 14, 2023 Reference: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director PAGE 108 Recommended Action: Receive the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: April 13, 2023 PAGE 121 Reference: Aaron Cambell, Associate Planner
Recommended Action: Receive the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For public hearings involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, the proponent of an item may be given 10 minutes to speak and others in support of the proponent’s position may be given three minutes each. A designated spokesperson for opposition to the item may be given 10 minutes to speak and all others in opposition may be given three minutes each. Very brief rebuttal and surrebuttal may be allowed in the sole discretion of the Council. In public hearings not involving a quasi-judicial determination by the Council, all persons may be given three minutes to speak on the matter.
A. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Amendment PAGE 127 Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Recommended Action:
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Section Chapter 23.80 Accessory Dwelling Units approving the proposed zoning text amendment; and
3. PGCC 7-5-2023
Direct the publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
4. CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Actuarial Analysis for the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans This item was continued from the Council's June 21, 2023 meeting. PAGE 153 Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Receive the report and presentation
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Purple Pipe Feasibility Study This item was continued from the Council's June 21, 2023 meeting. PAGE 245
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Receive Report and Provide Direction.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Safety Improvements at 5-way intersection This item was continued from the Council's June 21, 2023 meeting. PAGE 300
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
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 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Requests for Proposals for a Coastal Wildlife Protection Program PAGE 328 Reference: Dara Sanders, Contract Planner and Ben Harvey, City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Approved the draft Requests for Proposals for finalization and publication.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action on this item.
PGCC 7-5-2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Small Business Recovery Action Plan PAGE 339
Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action:
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
13. NEW BUSINESS
A. Energy Savings Assessment & Resiliency PAGE 354
Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action:
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. City Public Information and Community Engagement through Social Media PAGE 357 Reference: Ben Harvey, City Manager
Recommended Action:
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. League of California Cities (LoCC) Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) Reference: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk
Recommended Action: PAGE 368
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.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines PGCC 7-5-2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE OF ADA COMPLIANCE: Pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Codified At 42 United States Code Section 12101 and 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 35), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age or sexual orientation in the provision of any services, programs, or activities. The City of Pacific Grove does not discriminate against persons with disabilities. City Hall is an accessible facility. A limited number of assisted listening devices will be available at this meeting. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting or provide the requested agenda format.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 2 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Mayor's Proclamation: Recognizing Dr. Ralph Porras CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive presentation.
Attachments
Proclamation Recognizing Ralph Porras
PGCC 7-5-2023
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 4 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Written General Public Comment
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive written public comment, if applicable.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 5 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Sandra Kandell, City Clerk/DEI Coordinator
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Minutes of the June 21, 2023 Special and Regular Meetings and the June 23, 2023 Special Closed Session Meeting
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve minutes.
Attachments
Draft Minutes 6-21-23
Draft Minutes 6-23-23
PGCC 7-5-2023
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 5:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA
THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID) Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
No public comment received.
A. Threat to Public Services of Facilities Government Code Section 54957 (Evaluation of Recommendations in Security Assessment Report) Consultation with City Manager Ben Harvey, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Tori Hannah, Police Chief Cathy Madalone, and Security Site Assessment Consultant Dr. Steve Albrecht (via Zoom) PGCC 7-5-2023
2 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
JOIN THE ZOOM WEBINAR TO PARTICIPATE LIVE AT:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/209579290
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Beck led the pledge of allegiance.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Council made the following recommendations: Agenda item 14A be moved and heard as 2A under 2. Presentations; Agenda item 12D be continued to the Council’s July 5, 2023 meeting; and Agenda item 12G become the new agenda item 12D.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda as modified.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
2. PRESENTATIONS
A. Monterey One Water Presentation re Monterey County Tax Bill and Future Wastewater Collection Fees During the Approval of Agenda, this item was moved up from Regular Agenda item 14A Full Presentations.
Public comment received from Inge Lorentzen Daumer and Rebecca Lee.
Action: Council received the presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 7-5-2023
3 3. COUNCIL AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Report on Closed Session by City Attorney
Threat to Public Services of Facilities Government Code Section 54957 (Evaluation of Recommendations in Security Assessment Report) Consultation with City Manager Ben Harvey, Administrative Services Director/Assistant City Manager Tori Hannah, Police Chief Cathy Madalone, and Security Site Assessment Consultant Dr. Steve Albrecht (via Zoom) City Attorney Brian Pierik had nothing to report.
B. Council and staff made general announcements.
4. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
General public comment received from Dan Miller, Rebecca Lee, Vince Tuminello, Mike Gibbs, Colleen Ingram, Jane Haines, Carol Marquart, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Carmelita Garcia, Nadja Mark, and one unnamed speaker.
A. Written General Public Comment
Action: Received written general public comment if applicable.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
CONSENT AGENDA
Action: Consent Agenda item 8D was pulled and considered as Regular Agenda item 12D concurrent with the new 12D City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report (formerly 12G).
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the Consent Agenda modified.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
5. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
A. Minutes of the June 7, 2023 Special and Regular Meetings Action: Approved minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
6. RESOLUTIONS
7. ORDINANCES
8. REPORTS – INFORMATION ONLY
A. May 2023 Check Register
Action: Received the check register.
PGCC 7-5-2023
4 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. May 2023 Core Revenue Report
Action: Received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Independent Auditor's Letter Regarding Airbnb Transient Occupancy Tax Receipts that were Applicable to Fiscal Year 2021/22
Action: Received the Independent Auditor's letter.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Letter from Economic Development Commission to City Council Recommending a "Status Quo" Approach to Existing Parklets This item was pulled and considered as 12D concurrent with the new Agenda item 12D City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report (formerly 12G).
Reference: Aaron Hoops, Economic Development Commissioner Recommended Action: Receive the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
E. Monterey Salinas Transit Board Minutes: May 8, 2023
Action: Received minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
9. REPORTS – REQUIRING ACTION
A. School Resource Officer Program Agreement
Action: Entered into an agreement with the Pacific Grove Unified School District to provide a School Resource Officer during the 2023/2024 school year, to include reimbursement of $82,230.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
10. MEETING MINUTES OF COMMISSIONS, BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES A. Architectural Review Board Regular and Special Meeting Minutes: May 9, 2023 and May 16, 2023
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Meeting Minutes: May 8, 2023.
Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
PGCC 7-5-2023
5 C. Historic Resources Committee Meeting Minutes: April 26, 2023 and May 24, 2023 Action: Received the minutes.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
REGULAR AGENDA
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. First reading of an ordinance to amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) No public comment received.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Poduri and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Waive further reading of the ordinance;
3. Introduce and hold a first reading of an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to modify the salary range for Police Officer and Police Sergeant and approve the amendment; and
4. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to
1. Request City Attorney to read the title of the Ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading;
3. Introduce and hold first reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution;
4. Find that this action does not constitute a “Project” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378; and
5. Direct that a summary of a proposed ordinance be published as approved by the City Attorney.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, PGCC 7-5-2023
6 Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Ordinance to Adopt the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget; and Amend the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget
No public comment received.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to hold second reading, approve Ordinance No. 23-007 to adopt the Fiscal Year 23/24 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget, and amend the Fiscal Year 22/23 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget
Motion carried 6-1, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: Councilmember Amelio.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
12. UNFINISHED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Lover's Point Pier Repair Project This item was continued from Council's May 17 and June 7, 2023 meetings.
Public comment received from Dan Miller, Rebecca Lee, Tony Ciani, and Andrew Kubica.
Action: Council received the report, provided staff with direction on pursuing the interim repair design solution and the cost of developing a long-term solution.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
B. Council Policy Posting Contracts and Agreements Online This item was continued from Council's June 7, 2023 meeting.
Public comment received from Lisa Ciani.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to direct the City Attorney to return with a Council Resolution creating Posting Contracts and Agreements Online Policy 000-29.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
PGCC 7-5-2023
7 ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
C. Arborist Services 1 Year Extension The item was continued from the Council's June 7, 2023 meeting.
Public comment received from Rebecca Lee, Lisa Ciani, Michael Durant, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, Christine Walkingstick, Marsha and Cari Rotoli.
Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Amelio and seconded by Councilmember Poduri, Council voted to authorize a one-year extension agreement with Albert Weisfuss for Professional Arborist Services for FY23/24 in an amount not to exceed $100,000.
Motion carried 7-0, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, Coletti, McDonnell, and Poduri.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Actuarial Analysis for the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans During the Approval of the Agenda, the item was continued to the City Council’s July 5, 2023 meeting.
Reference: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Receive the report and presentation.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. Letter from Economic Development Commission to City Council Recommending a "Status Quo" Approach to Existing Parklets This item was pulled and considered as 12D concurrent with the new Agenda item 12D City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report (formerly 12G).
Action: Council received the report.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
D. City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report and approval of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain
Public comment received from Dennis Murphy, Liz Jacobs, unnamed speaker, Steve Hulleen, Suzanne Riley, Jason Bradley, Julie Vivolo Davis, Jerry Register, Dan Miller, Mike Gibbs, Michael Durrant, Adam de Boor, Cari Rotoli, Nicolas, Wendi Giles, Dixie Lane, Marsha, and Inge Lorentzen Daumer.
PGCC 7-5-2023
8 Action: Upon motion by Councilmember Coletti and seconded by Councilmember Beck, Council voted to
1. Direct City staff to proceed with the design of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain.
2. Direct the City Traffic Engineer, City Attorney, and other City staff to prepare a report of relevant safety standards and compliance measures necessary for new and existing parklets. This will include a restriping plan for a) parking spaces adjacent to new and existing parklets, and b) the right-of-way.
3. Extend the term of the City Council Parklet Subcommittee to March 1, 2024.
Motion carried 5-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Beck, Coletti, and McDonnell.
NOES: Councilmembers Amelio and Poduri.
ABSENT: None.
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Coletti, Council voted to adjourn and continue the remaining items to the Council’s July 5, 2023 meeting.
E. Purple Pipe Feasibility Study
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
1. Receive Report and Provide Direction.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
F. Safety Improvements at 5-way intersection
Reference: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager Recommended Action:
1. 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.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other related action to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
G. City Council Parklet Subcommittee Status Report and approval of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain During the Approval of the Agenda, this item was moved and heard as 12D.
Reference: Debby Beck, Luke Coletti, and Lori McDonnell, Councilmembers Recommended Action:
1. Direct City staff to proceed with the design of the proposed curb extension and permanent parklet concept at the southwest corner of Lighthouse and Fountain.
2. Direct the City Traffic Engineer, City Attorney, and other City staff to prepare a PGCC 7-5-2023
9 report of relevant safety standards and compliance measures necessary for new and existing parklets. This will include a restriping plan for a) parking spaces adjacent to new and existing parklets, and b) the right-of-way.
3. Extend the term of the City Council Parklet Subcommittee to March 1, 2024.
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. FULL PRESENTATIONS
A. Monterey One Water Presentation re Monterey County Tax Bill and Future Wastewater Collection Fees During the Approval of Agenda, this item was moved and heard as 2A under Presentations.
Reference: Mike McCullough, Director of External Affairs Recommended Action: Receive the presentation.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
15. CLOSED SESSION
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 10:21 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ PGCC 7-5-2023
1 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING
Friday, June 23, 2023, 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA APPEARING REMOTELY VIA ZOOM:
Councilmember Poduri
601 W. McKinley Avenue
Pomona, CA 91768
Join the Zoom Meeting to participate live at:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/692219855
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Peake called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. City Clerk Kandell conducted roll call with the following Council present in Chamber: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, and McDonnell. Appearing via Zoom: Councilmember Poduri. Absent: Councilmember Coletti.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Action: Upon motion by Mayor Pro Tem Smith and seconded by Councilmember Amelio, Council voted to approve the agenda.
Motion carried 5-0-2, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Peake, Mayor Pro Tem Smith, Councilmembers Amelio, Beck, and McDonnell.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmembers Coletti and Poduri.
CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION MATTERS
Public comment received from Mike Gibbs, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Dan Miller.
1. Written Public Comment
A. Public Employment, (Government Code § 54957)
Title: City Manager Performance Evaluation
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned the regular meeting at 5:50 p.m. A report out will occur at the next Council meeting.
PGCC 7-5-2023
2 Respectfully Submitted,
Sandra Kandell
City Clerk
Approved by Mayor: _______________________________Date________________ Attest by City Manager: ____________________________Date_________________ PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 7 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Leticia Livian, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance to Amend the City Salary Classification Schedule (POA) CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Hold a second reading and adopt an ordinance to amend the salary classification schedule to modify the salary range for Police Officer and Police Sergeant and approve the amendment.
DISCUSSION
There were no substantive changes between the first and second readings. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on June 29, 2023.
On August 27, 2022, the Council adopted Resolution 22-045 to authorize the city manager to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Pacific Grove (City) and the Pacific Grove Police Officers Association (POA).
The MOU approved increases to the salary range for Police Officer and Police Sergeant for 2022 and 2023. The salary increases and the effective dates are listed below.
3% salary increase effective July 24, 2022; and
2% salary increase effective July 9, 2023.
The City salary classification schedule identifies the job classifications approved by Council (e.g., Police Officer) and the hourly rates of pay for each classification at each step authorized by the Personnel Rules. To implement a salary increase, the salary classification schedule must be amended to incorporate the salary increase for the effective dates outlined in the MOU between the City and the POA. The action proposed in this Agenda Report is to finalize the salary change for the second increase of 2% effective July 9, 2023.
Pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280, approval and amendment to the classification schedule must be adopted by the Council.
The requested changes are for Police Officer and Police Sergeant classifications only, all other classifications in the salary schedule remain the same. Click here to view the entire salary schedule.
City Of Pacific Grove
Proposed New Salary Schedule - POA Hourly Rate
Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
Current Hourly Police Sergeant 52.48 55.11 57.86 60.76 63.80 66.19 68.67 New Hourly Police Sergeant 53.53 56.21 59.02 61.97 65.07 67.51 70.04
Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
Current Hourly Police Officer 45.42 47.69 50.08 52.58 55.21 57.28 59.43 New Hourly Police Officer 46.33 48.65 51.08 53.63 56.32 58.43 60.02 PGCC 7-5-2023
OPTIONS
Provide alternative direction to staff.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The projected annual fiscal impact to the General Fund is $70,000 and is budgeted for the FY 23/24 for the 2% COLA.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Ordinance
PGCC 7-5-2023
ORDINANCE NO. 23-
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR POLICE SERGEANT
AND POLICE OFFICER
Findings
1. The City of Pacific Grove (City) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Pacific Grove Police Officer Association on August 27, 2022; and
2. The MOU is effective from July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2024; and
3. The MOU contains two salary adjustments; and
4. The first salary adjustment took effect on July 24, 2022; and
5. The second salary adjustment takes effect July 9, 2023; and
6. Modifications to the salary classification plan are for Police Officer and Police Sergeant Classifications only; and
7. Modifications to the salary classification plan must be amended for each described date; and
8. Amendment to the classification plan must be adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 25 and Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) Section 4.20.280; and
9. The City Council ratified the MOU and its implementation measures, including salary adjustment; and
10. In the enactment of this ordinance, the City followed the guidelines adopted by the State of California and published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. Enactment of this ordinance action does not constitute a “project” as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment pursuant Section 15378.
Ordinance
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
SECTION 1. The foregoing findings of the City Council are incorporated into this Ordinance as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. The position classification plan approved and adopted by the City Council pursuant to Charter Article 15 and PGMC § 4.20.280 is amended for the POA positions, with the following salary schedule:
PGCC 7-5-2023
City Of Pacific Grove
Proposed New Salary Schedule - POA Hourly Rate
Eff. Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
July 9, 2023 524-001 Police Sergeant 53.53 56.21 59.02 61.97 65.07 67.51 70.04 Eff. Classification Step
1A
Step
2B
Step
3C
Step
4D
Step
5E
Step
6F
Step
7G
July 9, 2023 516-001 Police Officer 46.33 48.65 51.08 53.63 56.32 58.43 60.02 SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective July 9, 2023.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this day of , 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BRIAN PIERNIK, City Attorney
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 7 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Brian A. Pierik, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Hold second reading and adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution.
DISCUSSION
There were no substantive changes between the first and second readings. The City Clerk caused a summary of the ordinance to be published on June 29, 2023.
On May 17, 2023, the City Council voted to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code codifying that Council policies shall be created, amended, or deleted only by Council Resolution.
Council Policies are available online and can be found here.
According to the May 17, 2023 Agenda Report:
1. Council policies are an important and integral part of city government.
Policies span a wide range of local government functions to establish important procedures and administrative actions.
2. Recent practice to create or amend Council policy has not been consistent, doing so either by resolution or motion (minute order).
3. Resolutions provide a permanent record that includes findings, Council votes, and is more readily located than minutes, thus strengthening the administrative record and ease of public access to the policy action.
4. The recommended action would require a Council Resolution to create, amend or delete a Council Policy.
5. Due to the above, the May 17, 2023 Agenda Report recommended that the City Council direct the City PGCC 7-5-2023
Attorney to draft an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution in the following manner:
2.04.100 Policy creation, amendment, or deletion.
Council policies shall be created, amended, or deleted only by Council Resolution.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance
PGCC 7-5-2023
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE PACIFIC GROVE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2.04.100 ON POLICY CREATION, AMENDMENT, OR DELETION
BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
FACTS
1. On May 17, 2023, the City Council voted to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to amend Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code codifying that Council policies shall be created, amended, or deleted only by Council Resolution.
2. Council policies are an important and integral part of city government.
3. Policies span a wide range of local government functions to establish important procedures and administrative actions.
4. Recent practice to create or amend Council policy has not been consistent, doing so either by resolution or motion (minute order).
5. Resolutions provide a permanent record that includes findings, Council votes, and is more readily located than minutes, thus strengthening the administrative record and ease of public access to the policy action.
6. For these reasons, the City Council directed the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.04 of the Pacific Grove Municipal Code by adding Section 2.04.100 on Policy creation, amendment, or deletion by City Council Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The foregoing Facts are adopted as findings of the City Council as though set forth in fully within the body of this ordinance.
SECTION 2. Chapter 2.04 is hereby amended to add Section 2.04.110 to read as follows
2.04.100 Policy creation, amendment, or deletion. Council policies shall be created, amended, or deleted only by Council Resolution.
SECTION 3. The City Manager is directed to execute all documents and to perform all other necessary City acts to implement this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof, or its application to other persons or circumstances. The City Council hereby PGCC 7-5-2023
declares that it would have passed and adopted each provision, section, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. In accord with Article 15 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective on the thirtieth (30th) day following its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this ______ day of ______________, ______, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATED:_______________________
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN A. PIERIK, City Attorney
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: PW Temporary Trailer Ratification (PW Fire)
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Ratify the trailer rental with Williams Scotsman, Inc., by approving a resolution, for the Public Works Admin Office temporary trailer rental in the amount of $44,440 plus a 5% contingency, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.16.080, Bidding Procedures-Dispensation.
DISCUSSION
The City authorized a temporary trailer rental to house the Public Works Administrative office, following the fire at the corporation yard, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.16.080 Bidding Procedures-Dispensation when.
Purchase of supplies, services, materials and equipment shall be by quotation or bid procedures as set forth in this chapter. Such procedures may be dispensed with by the purchasing agent, in his or her sole discretion and judgment as to the best interest of the city, as follows:
(a) When an emergency requires that an order be placed immediately with the nearest available source of supply.
Provided, that even when procedures are dispensed with hereunder, council approval, by resolution, shall be required for purchases in excess of the maximum amount for which the purchasing agent is authorized, as specified in Article II of this chapter. [Ord. 14-005 § 2, 2014; Ord. 1405 N.S. § 2, 1984]
On June 5, 2021, at approximately 1:00 am, a fatal vehicle collision occurred at the Public Works Corporate Yard (PW Yard), located at 2100 Sunset Drive. A vehicle traveling on Grove Acre at a high rate of speed crossed Sunset Drive, striking the curb, crashing through the chain link fence that borders the PW Yard, and collided with the warehouse building. The collision caused the vehicle and building to become engulfed in flames, resulting in major damage and destroying the vehicle. The unfortunate incident rendered the Public Works Administration office unusable, destroyed all the contents of the warehouse, including the main electrical panels, IT infrastructure, and numerous documents.
Public Works acted immediately to deploy portable generators to power the yard and to obtain a temporary trailer to house administrative staff and necessary IT equipment to continue ongoing PGCC 7-5-2023
operations. These actions were taken to ensure services for our residents, visitors, and business, would continue without disruption.
The temporary trailer was delivered in June 2021 and returned in June 2023. At the time the City entered into the rental agreement, it was unknown how long it would take for the office repairs and power restoration to occur. Due to several shipping delays for the metal warehouse materials, and permanent electrical infrastructure elements (such as panels), the duration of the trailer lease remained uncertain.
The office repairs and IT infrastructure were finalized to accommodate moving employees back into the main office in late May 2023; the trailer was subsequently picked up at the start of June 2023; the final rental invoicing has been received. A 5% contingency has been included to accommodate any potential additional charges related to the pickup and final inspection/closeout. In accordance with the Municipal Code, this item has returned for City Council ratification.
OPTIONS
Ratify the trailer rental. Authorization of the rental was executed in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 2.16.080 Bidding Procedures-Dispensation when (a) When an emergency requires that an order be placed immediately with the nearest available source of supply. In accordance with this section, the item has returned for formal ratification. The rental term is now complete and the costs will be reimbursed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The temporary trailer rental for the Public Works Yard is reimbursed by the City’s Insurance Company, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA). Staff has been in regular communication with CJPIA and obtained approvals for the trailer rental with William Scotsman.
CJPIA reimbursement requests have occurred quarterly. As a result, the majority of the trailer rental costs have already been reimbursed by CJPIA. Final reimbursement requests for the trailer will be requested upon processing of final invoicing.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
Attachments
Resolution
PGCC 7-5-2023
RESOLUTION NO. 23-____
RATIFY AN AGREEMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY TRAILER AT THE PUBLIC
WORKS CORPORATION YARD
FINDINGS
1. The City of Pacific Grove owns the Public Works Yard located at 2100 Sunset Drive.
2. On June 5, 2021 a vehicle collision caused a significant fire at the Public Works Yard causing damage to the Public Works Administration Office and the electrical and IT equipment,
3. Per Municipal Code Section 2.16.080 Bidding Procedures-Dispensation when:
(a) When an emergency requires that an order be placed immediately with the nearest available source of supply.
4. William Scotsman, Inc was contacted under emergency procedure to furnish a temporary trailer to house the Public Works Administration staff and IT equipment necessary for operations that were displaced following the fire damage
5. Funds for the temporary trailer are reimbursable through the City insurance authority.
6. This action is categorically exempt as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 1, Article 19, Section 15301(b). Existing facilities, this states that Class 1 includes maintenance of existing public facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE:
1. The Council determines that each of the Findings set forth above is true and correct, and by this reference incorporates those Findings as an integral part of this Resolution.
2. The Council authorizes the City to ratify the trailer rental with Williams Scotsman, Inc., by approving a resolution, for the Public Works Admin Office temporary trailer rental in the amount of $44,440 plus a 5% contingency.
3. This Resolution shall become effective immediate following passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE this 5th of July 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
PGCC 7-5-2023
ABSENT:
APPROVED:
_______________________________
BILL PEAKE, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
SANDRA KANDELL, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
BRIAN PIERIK , City Attorney
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Professional Planning Services with Good City Company CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement not to exceed $75,000 for professional contract planning services with Good City Company.
DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, the Community Development Department (Department) has experienced several losses in planning staff. Due to the losses of higher level staff, the Department has underfilled current budgeted positions with lower level planning staff, including an Assistant, and Associate Planners. This leaves a need to train new staff and fill in senior level planning needs in the Department.
In order to properly develop new staff and remain a functioning department, higher level assignments and special planning projects, wireless facilities review, coastal commission requirements, Ordinance updates, CEQA review, and training new staff is needed from specialized services offered through Good City Company.
Good City Company has been an integral part of the CDD Planning team since coming on board in late February 2023. Dara Sanders, the Good City Principal Planner, has assisted with the ADU Ordinance Update, Coastal Wildlife Protection RFP, wireless projects, training newly hired Assistant and Associate Planners, and helping CDD streamline services to the public. Dara has 17 years of current and long-range planning experience, including project management, general plan updates, authorizing zoning code amendments and design regulations, corridor planning, neighborhood planning, historic preservation, GIS analysis, customer support, and processing planning entitlement applications. She has experience in administering local coastal plan requirements and managing complex development, design review, wireless facilities, and subdivision applications.
The Good City contract was initiated with an initial budget of $39,000 from February 23, 2023-February 27, 2024. This contract was amended in scope on May 2, 2023 to limit the scope to Current Planning services that were needed. The contract was further amended on May 19 to increase the budget to $39,999 to ensure the Department could provide higher level planning services needed through the end of the Fiscal Year. Good City has conservatively provided excellent service while staying within the budget available to the end of the Fiscal Year. Good City attends weekly Department Agenda planning meetings to ensure projects get to hearings and support new staff with complex PGCC 7-5-2023
questions and assignments.
The approval of this contract will provide continued business continuity, allow for continued smooth transition with new staff, and ensure adequate planning staff resources for projects.
OPTIONS
Take no action. Note: taking no action would result in the conclusion of Good City Company's contract services to the City and would result in an impact to CDD service delivery levels.
1. Provide alternative direction, such as authorizing a contract with Good City Company for a different amount and/or period of time.
2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
For Fiscal Year 2023-2024, the proposed funding for this contract was originally budgeted at $30,000.
CDD is requesting additional appropriations from the General Fund for the additional $45,000.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
Attachments
Good City Contract
PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT (“PSA”) FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (“Agreement”), is made and effective as of July 1, 2023, between the City of Pacific Grove (“City”), a municipal corporation and Good City Company, a California Corporation (“CONSULTANT”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2023 and shall remain and continue in effect until the tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2024, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SCOPE OF WORK
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and services (“Services”) described and set forth in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
CONSULTANT shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. To the extent that Exhibit A is a proposal from CONSULTANT, such proposal is incorporated only for the description of the Scope of Services and no other terms and conditions from any such proposal shall apply to this Agreement unless specifically agreed to in writing.
3. PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of their ability, experience, and talent, perform all Services described herein. CONSULTANT shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of CONSULTANT hereunder in meeting their obligations under this Agreement.
4. CITY MANAGEMENT
The City Manager, or their designee, shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the administration of this Agreement, review and approval of all products submitted by CONSULTANT, but not including the authority to enlarge the Scope of Work or change the compensation due to CONSULTANT. The City Manager shall be authorized to act on City’s behalf and to execute all necessary documents that enlarge the Scope of Work or change CONSULTANT’s compensation, subject to Section 6 hereof.
5. PAYMENT
a. The City agrees to pay CONSULTANT monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the Payment Schedule as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed $75,000.00 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. The City Manager’s contract authority is limited to $39,999.99, which includes all costs.
Contracts, including any contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, require City Council approval. Any contracts, including contract amendments that exceed the total threshold, which do not have City Council approval, shall be void. c. CONSULTANT shall not be compensated for any Services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement that are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager or the City Council. CONSULTANT shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and CONSULTANT at the time City’s written authorization is given to CONSULTANT for the performance of said services. d. CONSULTANT shall submit invoices monthly for actual Services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for Services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of CONSULTANT’s fees it shall give written notice to CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice therefore.
6. INSPECTION
City shall at all times have the right to inspect the work and materials. CONSULTANT shall furnish all reasonable aid and assistance required by City for the proper examination of the work and all parts thereof. Such inspection shall not relieve CONSULTANT from any obligation to perform said work strictly in accordance with the specifications or any modifications thereof and in compliance with the law.
7. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon CONSULTANT at least thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all Services under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreementsuch suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to CONSULTANT the actual value of the Services performed up to the time of termination, provided that the Services performed are of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, CONSULTANT will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 6.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
8. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that CONSULTANT is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating CONSULTANT for any Services performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the CONSULTANT. If such failure by the CONSULTANT to make progress in the performance of Services hereunder arises out of causes beyond the CONSULTANT’s control, and without fault or negligence of the CONSULTANT, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or designee determines CONSULTANT is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, they shall cause to be served upon CONSULTANT a written notice of the default. The CONSULTANT shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event CONSULTANT fails to cure its default within such period of time or fails to present City with a written plan for the cure of the default, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
9. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
a. CONSULTANT shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate records of Services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of Services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. CONSULTANT shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit City to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. If there is a substantial billing deviation adverse to City, then the cost of an audit shall be borne by CONSULTANT. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of City and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by City without the permission of CONSULTANT. With respect to computer files, CONSULTANT shall make available to City, at CONSULTANT’s office and upon reasonable written request by City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing computer files.
CONSULTANT hereby grants to City all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
and other documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement.
10. RECORD AUDIT
In accordance with Government Code, Section 8546.7, for expenditures of greater than $10,000, records of both City and CONSULTANT shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General for a period of three (3) years after final payment.
11. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE
Indemnity
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify and hold harmless City and any and all of its officers, employees and agents (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including legal counsel’s fees and costs, caused in whole or in part by the negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees or subconsultants (or any City or individual that CONSULTANT shall bear the legal liability thereof) in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless City shall not extend to the City’s sole or active negligence.
Duty to defend
In the event City, its officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from the performance of the Services encompassed by this Agreement, and upon demand by City, CONSULTANT shall defend City at CONSULTANT’s cost or at City’s option, to reimburse City for its costs of defense, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the defense of such matters to the extent the matters arise from, relate to or are caused by CONSULTANT’s negligent acts, errors or omissions. Payment by City is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSULTANT and City, as to whether liability arises from the sole or active negligence of the City or its officers, employees, or agents, CONSULTANT will be obligated to pay for City’s defense until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating the City as solely or actively negligent. CONSULTANT will not be entitled in the absence of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.
12. INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit C attached to and part of this Agreement.
13. INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT
a. CONSULTANT is and shall at all times remain as to City a wholly independent consultant and/or independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT shall at all times be under DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
CONSULTANT’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement.
CONSULTANT shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of City.
CONSULTANT shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to CONSULTANT as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONSULTANT for performing Services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONSULTANT for injury or sickness arising out of performing Services hereunder.
14. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of State and Federal laws and regulations that in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its Services pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations. City, and its officers, employees, and agents shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the CONSULTANT to comply with this Section.
15. UNDUE INFLUENCE
CONSULTANT declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer, employee or agent of City in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer, employee or agent of City has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from CONSULTANT, or from any officer, employee or agent of CONSULTANT, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any Services to be performed as a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling City to any and all remedies at law or in equity.
16. NO BENEFIT TO ARISE TO CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No officer, employee of City, or their designees or agents, and no public official who exercises authority over or responsibilities with respect to the Services performed under the Agreement during their tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in any agreement or sub-agreement, or the proceeds thereof, for work to be performed in connection with the Services performed under this Agreement.
17. RELEASE OF INFORMATION/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
a. All information gained by CONSULTANT in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by CONSULTANT without City’s prior written authorization. CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories, or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided CONSULTANT gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. CONSULTANT shall promptly notify CITY should CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, or subconsultants be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions, or other discovery request (“Discovery”), court order, or subpoena from any person or party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under or with respect to any project or property located within the City, unless City is a party to any lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding connected to such Discovery, or unless CONSULTANT is prohibited by law from informing City of such Discovery.
City retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent CONSULTANT and/or be present at any deposition, hearing, or similar proceeding as allowed by law. Unless City is a party to the lawsuit, arbitration, or administrative proceeding and is adverse to CONSULTANT in such proceeding, CONSULTANT agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by CONSULTANT. However, City’s right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. c. If City determines CONTRACTOR comes within the definition of Contractor under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100 et seq.), CONTRACTOR shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing Work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with CITY disclosing CONTRACTOR’s and/or such other person’s financial interests.
18. DISCRIMINATION
CONSULTANT agrees that in the performance of this Agreement, neither CONSULTANT nor any person acting on CONSULTANT’s behalf shall discriminate against any person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, gender expression, military or veteran status or age.
19. NOTICES
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, which provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, by first class mail, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice:
To City: Anastacia Wyatt
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
City of Pacific Grove
300 Forest Avenue
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
To CONSULTANT: Aaron Aknin
Good City Company
601 Allerton Street, Suite 110
Redwood City, CA 94063-1952
Notice is effective on the date of personal service, or 5 days following deposit in a United States mailbox, or date of postmark. The parties may agree to service by email.
20. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create, and the parties do not intend to create, any rights in third parties.
21. ASSIGNMENT
CONSULTANT shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of CITY. Because of the personal nature of the Services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the Services under this Agreement.
22. LICENSES
At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the Services described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall obtain a valid City Business License and shall maintain said Business License for the term of this Agreement and any extensions.
23. GOVERNING LAW
City and CONSULTANT understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties, and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in Monterey County, or federal district court with jurisdiction over City.
CONSULTANT agrees not to commence or prosecute any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement other than in the aforementioned courts and irrevocably consents to the exclusive personal jurisdiction and venue of the aforementioned courts.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to their obligations described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations, and statements, oral or written and pertaining to the subject of this Agreement or with respect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. No amendment shall be valid unless in writing, executed by both parties.
25. DISPUTE RESOLUTION; ATTORNEY’S FEES
CONSULTANT shall continue to perform under this Agreement during any dispute.
CONSULTANT and City hereby agree to make good faith efforts to resolve disputes as quickly as possible. In the event any dispute arising from or related to this Agreement results in litigation or arbitration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred, including court costs, attorney fees, expenses for expert witnesses (whether or not called to testify), expenses for accountants or appraisers (whether or not called to testify), and other related expenses. Recovery of these expenses shall be as additional costs awarded to the prevailing party, and shall not require initiation of a separate legal proceeding.
26. WORK SCHEDULED/TIME OF COMPLETION
City and CONSULTANT agree that time is of the essence in this Agreement.
27. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT
The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT warrants and represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the CONSULTANT and have the authority to bind CONSULTANT to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
28. INTERPRETATION OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions of any exhibit or other attachment to this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail and control.
29. SEVERABILITY
If any term of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitrator the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in effect.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE CONSULTANT
By: By:
Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director Aaron Aknin, Consultant
Date: Date:
By: ___________________________ By: __________________________ Bill Peake, Mayor Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director Date: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ Approved As To Form:
City Attorney
_______________________________
Date
Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B Payment Schedule
Exhibit C Insurance Requirements
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Current Planning: Good City will process and review planning applications and permits, attend public hearings, represent the City at meetings with outside agencies, and respond to planning inquires.
Internal Meetings: Good City will coordinate and attend project-related meetings with applicants, City staff, and the public.
Public Meetings: Good City staff will assist with public noticing, prepare materials, write staff reports, prepare PowerPoint presentations, and present and answer questions at meetings, as well as coordinate other tasks as assigned.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly. This amount shall not exceed $75,000 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Without limiting CONSULTANT’s indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of Work, CONSULTANT shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.
General liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted.
Automobile liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain automobile insurance at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CA 00 01 covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with Work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non-owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 combined single limit for each accident.
Professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain professional liability insurance that covers the Services to be performed in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this Agreement and CONSULTANT agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three (3) years after completion of the Services required by this Agreement.
Workers’ compensation insurance. CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000).
CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers.
Umbrella or excess liability insurance. CONSULTANT shall obtain and maintain an umbrella or excess liability insurance policy with limits that will provide bodily injury, personal injury and property damage liability coverage at least as broad as the primary coverages set forth above, including commercial general liability, automobile liability, and employer’s liability. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:
• A drop down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason; • Pay on behalf of wording as opposed to reimbursement; • Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies; • Policies shall “follow form” to the underlying primary policies; and • Insureds under primary policies shall also be insureds under the umbrella or excess policies.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
Other provisions or requirements
Proof of insurance. CONSULTANT shall provide certificates of insurance to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein, along with a waiver of subrogation endorsement for workers’ compensation. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance.
Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this contract. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
Duration of coverage. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by CONSULTANT, his agents, representatives, employees or subconsultants.
Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by CONSULTANT shall be primary and any insurance or selfinsurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.
City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by CONSULTANT or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from CONSULTANT payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VI (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager.
Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against CITY, its elected or appointed officers, agents, employees and volunteers or shall specifically allow CONSULTANT or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. CONSULTANT hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants.
Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform CONSULTANT of non-compliance with any requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder.
Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this Section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
Professional Services Agreement 07.19.2022
above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City.
Notice of cancellation. Consultant agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide to CITY with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage.
Additional insured status. General liability policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. This provision shall also apply to any excess/umbrella liability policies.
Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing.
Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions.
Pass through clause. CONSULTANT agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, and any other party involved with the project who is brought onto or involved in the project by CONSULTANT, provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. CONSULTANT agrees that upon request, all agreements with consultants, subcontractors, and others engaged in the project will be submitted to City for review.
City’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving the CONSULTANT ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. If such change results in substantial additional cost to the CONSULTANT, the City and CONSULTANT may renegotiate CONSULTANT’s compensation.
Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible. Self-insurance will not be considered to comply with these specifications unless approved by City.
Timely notice of claims. CONSULTANT shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies.
Additional insurance. CONSULTANT shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work.
DRAFT PGCC 7-5-2023
STATEMENT OF
QUALIFICATIONS
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR
BACKGROUND
Good City Company is a local government and land use consulting firm based in San Carlos, California, the “City of Good Living.” Initially founded in 1972 as Neal Martin & Associates, the company was reestablished in 2019 as Good City Company (Good City). The company is a California Corporation owned and operated by Lisa Costa Sanders and Aaron Aknin, AICP.
OUR BACKGROUND
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
Good City has a long track record of serving public and private sector clients. Our Northern California based history uniquely positions the company to provide technical services tailored to the local area. Our key services include local government staffing, current planning, policy planning, economic development, and building official staffing, as detailed below:
» Specialized Community Development Department Services: Site planning, project management (of long-planning range planning processes and development applications), staff report writing, design review, building permit review, Planning Commission facilitation, Code Enforcement Division Strategy documents, and other specialized project assistance.
» Community Development Department Staffing: In-house
Planning, Building, Engineering, Housing, Code Enforcement, and front counter staffing. We can provide staffing on both a short and long-term basis.
WHAT WE DO
WHAT
WE DO
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
» Policy Planning: Creation and process facilitation of policy planning initiatives such as General Plans, Specific Plans, Master Plans, Downtown/Transit Corridor Plans, Transportation Demand Management Strategies, and Zoning Codes.
» Economic Development Services: Downtown and neighborhood economic development, economic revitalization strategies, small business assistance and incentives, business recruitment and expansion programs, improving the transparency and
performance of economic development organizations,
operational support for economic development organizations, research and analysis of economic development and revenuegenerating opportunities, program management and implementation
» Fee Adoption Management Services: Prepare solicitations for fee preparations, calculate certain fees, draft staff reports and resolutions to assist the City in its cost-recovery efforts. » Building Official Services: Provide building official responsibilities, technical support, and proactive client- and customer-focused oversight of building departments
» Housing Strategy: In addition to general policy planning work, Good City can assist cities in developing strategies to produce more housing for all income levels.
» Policy Implementation: Implementation and tracking of LongRange Planning documents, such as General Plans, Housing Elements, Downtown Plan, and Specific Plans.
» Permit Streamlining & Development Review: Review and make recommendations related to optimizing the development and project review processes, that meet the needs of the City and
WHAT WE DO
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
applicant, and follow State legislation and other regulatory agencies.
» Budgeting and Revenue Forecasting: Coordinate, make
recommendations for action and policies for developing, implementing, and monitoring operating, capital improvement, and other public agency budgets. Identify key economic trends, challenges, opportunities using City data for revenue projections. » State Law Compliance (E.G., SB 35): Completion of required annual reports, “audits” of the zoning code to ensure SB35 compliance, and broader updates and information related to State level housing law and how it affects local entities.
» “Special Project” Assistance: Lead and manage projects for City/ County Manager’s Offices, Parks Departments, transportation agencies, and other public sector entities.
» Interim Executive Level Assignments: Provision of interim department/division head services, particularly related to Community Development Departments (Building/Planning) and City/County Manager’s Offices.
» Transportation Demand Management: Transportation-related strategy, policy planning, and monitoring services.
» California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): Complete initial reviews, categorical exemptions, negative declarations, and monitor projects consistent with CEQA.
» Town Hall Meeting Facilitation: Facilitate community meetings or open houses - whether they relate to a specific policy planning topic or broader community topics.
WHAT WE DO
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
Local Government Staffing, Current
Planning, & Policy Planning
Good City has extensive experience in successfully guiding the development process in Northern California. Working with jurisdictions and private clients, Good City has provided the professional direction to assure that projects are completed successfully in a streamlined fashion with careful attention to both local and State requirements.
Policy and Strategy, and General Plan and Code Updates
» Brisbane: SB2 Objective Standards Code Updates
» Caltrain: Land Use Strategy and Rail Planning for Diridon Station General Plan Revisions and Zoning Code Updates
» City of San Carlos
» Town of Atherton
» City of San Bruno
OUR
EXPERIENCE
OUR EXPERIENCE
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
Policy Planning & Strategy | City of San Carlos
» Specific Plans for the east and west sides of San Carlos » Downtown Visioning project
» Railroad Land Use studies
» Affordable Housing Strategy
Community Involvement | Atherton
» Housing Element Update
» Zoning Code Update
» Library EIR
» Civic Center EIR
In-House Planning Consulting Services
Economic Development
» Foster City
» County of San Mateo
Building Official Staffing
» Portola Valley
» Atherton
» East Palo Alto
» Hillsborough
» Newark
» Pacifica
» Redwood City
» San Carlos
» San Bruno
» San Mateo
OUR EXPERIENCE
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
Experience Examples
Within the Town of Atherton
» Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update
» 2010 and 2014 Housing Element Updates
» General counter assistance
» Zoning Code amendments
» Process Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment applications » Residential review (for large complex estates)
» Planning Commission staff support
» City Council staff support
» Management of City Council and Planning Commission staff reports
» Annexations
» Heritage Tree Removals
» Environmental Review
» Zoning Clearance reviews (business licenses)
» Staff support for the Environmental Programs Committee » Stormwater inspection (NPDES C.3)
» Preparation of annual NPDES reporting and trash plan
» Comprehensive General Plan Update
For the City of East Palo Alto
» Current planning project management services for the
Ravenswood/4Corners TOD Specific Plan.
» Review plans for compliance with the zoning code, specific plan and general plan, prepare staff reports, and respond to public inquiries.
For the City of Milpitas
» Planning project management services for a large complex new multi-family development.
» Manage the CEQA consultant and entitlement process, including
EXPERIENCE
EXAMPLES
PGCC 7-5-2023
preparation of staff reports, resolutions, ordinance, conditions of approval, and presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
For the City of Portola Valley
» Project management of high-level, complex development projects, including environmental review, Ordinance amendments, State Density Bonus law, and other entitlements.
» CEQA management of both Environmental Impact Reports and Negative Declarations.
» Preparation and presentation of staff reports and presentations for the City Council, Planning Commission, and other advisory Committees/Commissions.
» Architectural Design Review
» Site Development Permits
» Map Modifications
» Annual WELO Reporting
» Sign Permits
» Virtual Counter Assistance
For the City of Pacifica
» Residential Review
» Coastal Development Permits
» Zoning Amendment
» Use Permits
Within the City of Redwood City
» Current planning services including responding to public inquiries, responding to questions at the counter, and reviewing planning applications.
» Review plans for compliance with the zoning code and general plan.
» Preparation of staff report and presentation to Planning Commission and City Council.
EXPERIENCE
EXAMPLES
PGCC 7-5-2023
» Complex large project processing including large office campus projects complexes, residential developments, large and small infill single-family subdivisions, and school use permits.
Within the City of San Bruno
» Complex large project processing including large condominium complexes, residential developments, large and small in-fill singlefamily subdivisions, and home development, and commercial shopping mall renovation.
» Preparation of staff reports and recommendations on planning projects to the Planning Commission and City Council.
» Preparation of staff reports on public services/engineering projects to the City Council.
» Management of sustainability projects.
» Management of grant programs.
» Assistant Project Management for the San Bruno Grade
Separation project.
» Manage and provide direction to staff on planning projects.
Within the City of San Carlos
» General Plan (and Climate Action Plan) Comprehensive Update » Zoning Ordinance Comprehensive Update
» 2010, 2014, and 2022 (ongoing) Housing Element Update policy advisory and project management services
» Multi-tiered entitlement processing for large mixed-use projects, residential projects, and commercial projects
» Residential annexations
» Architectural Review for new single-family homes
» Subdivision Plan review and processing
» Conditional Use Permits for new businesses
» Zoning clearances
» Tree removal applications
» Massage Permit Applications
» Sign Permit Applications
EXPERIENCE
EXAMPLES
PGCC 7-5-2023
» City Council report preparation and presentation
» Planning Commission Review Preparation (Staff Reports, Minutes, Packet assembly and distribution)
» Economic Development assistance
» Property acquisition for economic development
» City-owned property management including lease negotiation » Housing Program administration
» Manage consultant preparation of EIRs
» Housing Strategy
» Downtown Streetscape Strategy and Project Management
For the County of San Mateo
» Advise County on economic development efforts
» Advise on an economic development strategy framework and related implementation for how the County will support small business recovery.
» Develop plan to strengthen business advocacy
» Identify sources of capital for small businesses (grant opportunities, loans, tax credits, etc.).
» Develop a staffing plan for the County to support small businesses including interdepartmental resources and coordination. » Develop timeframes and resources required for implementation. » Identify partners and stakeholders and level of involvement for each to achieve successful plan implementation.
» Prepare and present written and oral reports to the Board of Supervisors (and other committees/commissions)
EXPERIENCE
EXAMPLES
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
PGCC 7-5-2023
AARON AKNIN, AICP
Principal, Owner
LISA COSTA SANDERS
Principal, Owner
CAROL JOHNSON, AICP
Planning Director
LESLIE PARKS
Economic Development
Director
RON LA FRANCE
Chief Building Official
KELLY BEGGS
Principal Planner/
Planning Manager
STEPHANIE DAVIS, AICP
Principal Planner
DARA SANDERS
Principal Planner
MARK SULLIVAN, AICP
Housing Manager
SANDY COUNCIL
Housing Program
Consultant
ROBERT MCDONALD
Project Manager: Land Use
Entitlements
CHRISTOPHER
DACUMOS
Senior Planner/Project
Manager
JACOB GARCIA
Senior Planner
NICHOLAS HAMILTON
Senior Planner
CHRISTOPHER
NICHOLAS
Senior Planner
SABINA MORA
Senior Planner
RALPH ROBINSON
Associate Planner
ELIZA BAILEY
Assistant Planner
JAMIE BOURNE
Assistant Planner
DARA PHUNG
Marketing Specialist/
Graphic Designer
ORGANIZATION
PERSONNEL
ORGANIZATION
PERSONNEL
PGCC 7-5-2023
BILLING RATES
BILLING
RATES
Good City prides itself on being a cost-effective solution for public sector agencies. Staffretains detailed timesheets and works efficiently to ensure the client is getting the best value for the services.
Good City Company
1351 Laurel St
San Carlos, CA 94070
www.goodcityco.com
Subconsultant Contracts Direct Billing + 10% oversight fee Rates subject to adjustment January 1st of each year (typically 3-5% increase)
» Principal $250/hour
» Planning Director $225/hour
» Principal Planner/Planning Manager $195/hour
» Economic Development Director $225/hour
» Chief Building Official $165/hour
» Senior Planner/Project Manager $170/hour
» Associate Planner $135/hour
» Assistant Planner $120/hour
» Planning Technician $95/hour
» Marketing Specialist/Graphic Designer $95/hour
» Administrative Assistant $80/hour
PGCC 7-5-2023
CITY OF SAN CARLOS
Al Savay, Community Development Director
[email protected]
650-802-4209
CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Pamela Wu, Director of Community and Economic Development [email protected]
650-616-7039
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Mike Futrell, City Manager
[email protected]
650-877-8500
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
PGCC 7-5-2023
REFERENCES
CITY OF NEWARK
Steven Turner, Community Development Director
[email protected]
650-780-5934
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Christina Horrisberger, Community Development Director
[email protected]
650-522-7210
CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO
Patrick Heisinger, Assistant City Manager
[email protected]
650-853-3150
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
Jennifer Phan, Principal Management Analyst
[email protected]
650-286-3223
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., Urban Studies,
San Francisco State
University
M.A., Public Policy, Cal
State Northridge
MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
International City/
County Manager
Association
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Aknin, AICP, is a Principal and Co-Owner of Good City Company. He has nearly two decades of Bay Area municipal experience, including serving in an executive capacity for several different Peninsula cities.
He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and the American Planning Association. Aaron has frequently spoken at regional events, as well as served on panels at national conferences on topics related to development, downtown planning, transportation, parking, affordable housing, and related issues.
Most recently, Aaron was the Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director with the City of Redwood City. In this capacity, he oversaw a 70+ member department, which included the Planning, Housing, Engineering, Transportation, Front Counter Services, and Code Enforcement divisions. As the Assistant City Manager, he led key Citywide initiatives and also served as Interim City Manager in 2015.
Aaron was in Redwood City during a time of unprecedented growth and community involvement (2014-2019). During his half-decade with the City, the City reviewed and processed over 4,000 new housing units, as well as several million square feet of office space.
In addition, Aaron oversaw the implementation of the Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan, including several key amendments to the plan. Aaron helped shape a first of its kind community benefits program (“Partnership Redwood City”), adoption of several key affordable housing initiatives including an inclusionary housing ordinance, an Airbnb affordable housing tax and renter protections, and the adoption the Citywide Transportation Plan.
AARON AKNIN, AICP
Principal, Owner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
Aaron was also deeply involved in economic development issues and served on the Redwood City Community Improvement Association (RCIA) Board. Aaron continues to serve on the RCIA Board and was recently appointed to the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.
Finally, one of Aaron’s key focuses in Redwood City was improving the process, both for residents participating in policy making, as well as applicants, business owners and developers who chose to invest in the City.
Prior to coming to Redwood City, Aaron was with the City of Palo Alto in 2012-2014. He served as both the Assistant and Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment. In this capacity, he led the Planning and Transportation Divisions within the City. Key projects included the formation of the first Downtown Residential Permit Program (RPP), leading the downtown development cap process, providing direction related to the Comprehensive Plan (General Plan), being the Planning Commission liaison, and overseeing several Stanford related developments.
During his time in Palo Alto, Aaron focused much of his efforts on transparency by increasing the amount of available (and understandable) public information and building a connection within the community.
Aaron “grew up” as a local government professional within the City of San Bruno. He began his career in San Bruno in 2002 as an Assistant Planner, and left in 2012, after spending the last 5 years as the Community Development Director. As Community Development Director, he was in charge of the Planning, Building, and the Code Enforcement divisions in the City. He also staffed the Planning Commission and managed their agendas.
During his time in San Bruno, the Shops at Tanforan mall was PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
renovated for the first time in generations, and over 1,500 residential units were constructed citywide. This included over 1,000 units at “The Crossing” (former Navy Base) which included 315 affordable units. During Aaron’s tenure as Director, the first General Plan in 25 years was adopted, and the draft Transit Corridor Plan was released.
Most importantly, Aaron served as the Plan Section Chief during the PG&E Pipeline Explosion and worked closely with property owners during the immediate aftermath and in the months and years following the disaster.
Aaron grew up in the Peninsula, spent much of his adult life in San Francisco, and moved back to San Carlos in 2012. He lives there with his wife Cindy, and two kids.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., City and Regional
Planning, California
Polytechnic State
University
San Luis Obispo
MEMBERSHIPS
American Planning
Association
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ms. Costa Sanders has been with the firm since 1992. Her experience and specialties include interdepartmental project management, current, and long-range planning, solid waste and recycling management, budget preparation, and economic development and housing program implementation. She also has extensive experience in design review, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Subdivision Map Act and worked on permit streamlining and permit tracking systems. Ms. Costa Sanders manages staff and processes large complex development projects.
Serving as Principal Planner for the City of San Carlos, Ms. Costa Sanders provides staff assistance for larger complex Planning and Economic Development projects. She was the Project Planner for the Wheeler Plaza Development and Landmark Hotel Development. She also assisted with property acquisition for economic development, managed city-owned properties including lease negotiations and managed the City’s affordable housing programs. Ms. Costa Sanders also assists with General Plan and Zoning Code updates and amendments.
Ms. Costa Sanders also served as the Acting Assistant City Manager for the City of San Carlos. In that capacity, she prepared the Mayor’s State of the City presentation, managed the City’s annual Strategic Plan update, reviewed all City Council staff reports and attended several regional meetings on behalf of the City Manager’s office.
As Town Planner for the Town of Atherton, Ms. Costa Sanders manages all current and long-range planning and presents projects
LISA COSTA SANDERS
Principal, Owner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
to the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Costa Sanders also prepares ordinance amendments, General Plan updates and amendments, works on annexations and subdivisions.
Ms. Costa Sanders is currently assisting the City of South San Francisco with its comprehensive General Plan update, preparation of the Environmental Impact Report and Zoning Code Update.
As Contract Principal Planner for the City of Redwood City, Ms.
Costa Sanders managed larger complex development applications including the Harbor View Place development, Rocketship Charter School, multi-family development at 150 El Camino Real, mixed-use development at 557 E. Bayshore and 610 Walnut Street, Sandpiper School expansion and the City’s new water tank project.
Previously as the Acting Planning Manager for the City of San Bruno, she was the project planner for the Tanforan Remodel Project, Crossing 350-unit housing development, Pacific Bay Vistas, 308 unit multi-family development, Merimont 70 new home development, Skycrest 24 new home development, and Cedar Mills 14 new home development. She also assisted the Public Services Director with preparing reports to the City Council, managing sustainability projects, managing grant programs and served as the Assistant Project Manager for the San Bruno Grade Separation project.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Geology,
Washington State
University
MUP, Urban Planning
with Certificate
in Urban Design,
University of
Washington
MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
International City/
County Managers
Association
Urban Land Institute
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Carol Johnson is a dynamic and responsive urban planner, attuned to community needs, and adept at working with diverse groups in crafting policies, plans and implementation strategies in order to facilitate positive change. She has over 30 years of urban planning experience in both the public and private sectors, including serving as Planning Director for Multnomah County, Oregon; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Maricopa County, Arizona and Berkeley, California.
She has also worked as a planner in various capacities for cities in the states of Arizona, California, Connecticut and Washington.
Carol is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, the International City/County Managers Association and the Urban Land Institute.
Carol worked for the City of Berkeley as Planning Manager and Planning Director from 2014 to 2017. During her tenure, she oversaw the development review and approval of the first tall building in downtown Berkeley in almost 50 years. She also directed the development of the Adeline Corridor Specific Plan.
At the City of Concord she also served as the Planning Manager, and was responsible for the Concord Downtown Plan, including obtaining assistance of a Technical Advisory Panel from the Urban Land Institute to test the economic feasibility of the plan recommendations. For the Concord Safe Routes to Transit Plan, she incorporated culturally specific workshops to engage the community most impacted by the lack of safe pedestrian infrastructure.
While in Phoenix, Carol managed the in-house effort that resulted
CAROL JOHNSON, AICP
Planning Director
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
in the Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Code. It was a unique hybrid code incorporating concepts from form-based codes within the legal context of existing land use entitlements. The Urban Form Code served as the template for the Walkable Urban Code along the remainder of the light rail corridor. Carol also represented the City as a founding member of of the Sustainable Communities Working Group, a multi-agency/multi-sector organization that promoted the creation of equitable, affordable housing along the light rail corridor. She was one of four members responsible for obtaining a commitment for $20 million in loan funds from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) and Raza Development
Fund (RDF) to develop affordable and attainable housing and support services along the light rail corridor. Carol’s final project with Phoenix was the development of a sustainability framework for the update of the Phoenix General Plan which also incorporated concepts of anticipatory governance.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., History, San Jose
State University
M.A. History, San Jose
State University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Leslie Parks has 30+ years’ experience as a practitioner and consultant in the fields of economic development, redevelopment, and workforce development. She has developed and administered a diverse range of programs that include business retention and expansion initiatives, community benefits, training and job placement, affordable housing, and public/private partnerships.
She joins Good City Company as an economic development advisor supporting several cities on the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley.
Specific programs and projects include development of a small business action plan, economic development strategies, marketing plans, retail strategies, and economic development programs and staffing.
Leslie served as Economic Development Coordinator for the City of Burlingame; Director of Downtown and Industrial Development for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency; and Director of Community Services for the City of San Carlos; and Director of Economic Development for the City of San Jose. She has also provided consulting services for the cities of Menlo Park, San Mateo, Vacaville, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, the counties of Santa Cruz and San Mateo as well as Bay Area real estate developers and brokerage firms.
LESLIE PARKS
Economic Development Director
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A. History, New York
University
Master of City Planning,
Urban Studies/Affairs,
U.C. Berkeley
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mark is an urban planner with 25 years of experience in long-range and current planning with a focus on land use and housing policy.
Mark retired from the public sector in 2018 after serving as planning, redevelopment and housing manager for the City of San Bruno for 17 years. Before that, Mark was an economist at Seifel Associates working on redevelopment and housing projects for many California communities.
Mark has significant experience preparing and implementing land use plans and housing regulations, analyzing the economics of housing projects, managing housing efforts (including monitoring of affordable units) and overseeing the entitlement and environmental review process of complex development projects.
Notable projects he has successfully completed include: adoption of land use plans including the Transit Corridors Specific Plan (promotes high-density mixed-use TOD) and passage of an associated ballot measure to increase building heights and density, several housing elements, general plan amendments, parking management plan, and downtown facade improvement program; adoption of housingrelated regulations including inclusionary housing and housing impact fee ordinances, emergency shelter zoning, accessory dwelling unit ordinance, and; managed the approval of over 1,100 housing units, a 150-room hotel, and over 15,000 square feet of commercial space.
Mark believes strongly that smart growth principles can enhance social equity, environmental conservation, and healthy communities.
MARK SULLIVAN, AICP
Housing Manager
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
Mark is most interested in promoting land use solutions that can enable communities to adapt to the changing economic and demographic conditions currently facing the San Francisco Bay Area and balancing the needs of new worker households and families while preserving the quality of life of existing residents.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S. Housing, Oregon
State University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Sandy Council has 35+ years of experience in program design, implementation, and administration of a wide range of housing and community development programs. This work has involved extensive collaboration with city councils and commissions, all municipal departments, legal counsel, consultants, developers and builders, and community based and neighborhood organizations. She has served on numerous committees and task forces and is a current board member of The Leslie Senior Communities, a provider of affordable senior housing in San Mateo County.
She has worked closely with both nonprofit and market rate housing developers supporting the construction of new affordable housing units, including drafting RFPs, selecting developer teams, negotiating of agreements and pricing of affordable units, and ongoing monitoring of rental and ownership units, especially in conjunction with local inclusionary and state density bonus legal requirements.
She is proficient in working with a number of municipal finance tools:
administering federal Community Development Block Grant and Home programs, former redevelopment housing funds, local trust funds, and partnering with developers to obtain other local funds, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and multiple State of California financing programs.
She also has considerable experience with housing policy development, assisting with the preparation of several Housing Elements, and assisting with implementation of housing related legislation.
SANDY COUNCIL
Housing Services Consultant
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Physics, California
Polytechnic State
University, San Luis
Obispo
M.A., Economic and
Political Development,
Urban and Social Policy,
Columbia University
LICENSES &
CERTIFICATIONS
ICC Certified Building
Inspector – 1024819-B5
IAPMO Certified
Plumbing Inspector –
097295
California General
Contractors License
#692093 (expired)
California Building
Officials (expired)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ron La France is a Chief Building Official with Good City Company working in Peninsula cities. Mr. La France has over 35 years in the construction industry and has spent the last 25 years working for and with local Building Divisions. He began his career as a carpenter and general contractor before making a career change to become a Senior Building Inspector for the City of Menlo Park. Mr. La France was promoted to Building Official in 2003 and Assistant Community Development Director/Building Official in 2014. Prior to joining Good City Company, he worked as the Northern California Regional Operations Director for SafeBuilt.
During his tenure with the City of Menlo Park, Mr. La France oversaw Building Division’s operations, budgets, and the building permitting process for development projects. Additionally, he assisted with the City’s General Plan and Housing Element updates, the development of Reach Codes, the updating Building Division fees and the resolution of code enforcement issues. He oversaw the construction of the Facebook campuses, the Menlo Gateway high rise hotel and office buildings, the Station 1300 Project and several new apartment complexes. With SafeBuilt, Mr. La France was deeply involved with the development of a proprietary permit software, conversion to all digital plan review and the completion of the Hard Rock Casino in Wheatland.
Mr. La France’s broad experience allows him to understand all facets of the development process and enables him to work collaboratively with city departments and development applicants towards resolution of a wide range of complex construction issues.
RON LA FRANCE
Chief Building Official
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
Landscape Architecture
Certificate Program,
University of California,
Berkeley
B.S., City and Regional
Planning, California
Polytechnic State
University, San Luis
Obispo
M.P.A, Public
Administration,
Public Policy Analysis,
San Francisco State
University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Bob McDonald has had many roles working as a planner and project manager in the public sector. Starting as a planning technician with the County of San Mateo, Bob went on to become an assistant planner with the County of Solano, an associate planner with the City of San Mateo and later as a Senior/Long Range Planner with the City and County of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department. His local government experience includes:
» Project, environmental, landscape and architectural review of current planning projects
» Administrator for a parking and improvement district, » Long range planner and administrator for an open space program and advisory board, and
» Project and land acquisitions manager for complex public/private land developments.
With the City and County of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department, Bob managed, coordinated and unified the development and entitlements for the DeYoung Museum, Music Concourse, Academy of Sciences and underground parking projects. He also worked on the environmental, landscape and architectural review for complex public works projects such as the Union Square and the Harding/Fleming Golf Course renovation at Lake Merced. He also played a primary role as the long-range planner and administrator for the Open Space Program and Advisory Board.
Mr. McDonald’s strengths are working on complex development plans, assessing, and identifying architectural and environmental impacts, developing/administering mitigation and monitoring
ROBERT MCDONALD
Project Manager: Land Use Entitlements
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
programs, interdepartmental coordination of building permit review and obtaining final entitlements.
Mr. McDonald has served as a Design Review and Historic Preservation Commissioner and currently serves as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Sonoma.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., English, Davidson
College, Cum Laude
Master of City and
Regional Planning,
Rutgers
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Kelly Beggs has 10+ years of experience in land use planning, environmental planning, GIS analysis and public outreach/relations.
Her experience in current planning includes reviewing projects ranging from large commercial developments, public recreation projects, and 1,000-unit multi-family developments to singlefamily homes for cities throughout the Bay Area. She has assisted jurisdictions with comprehensive zoning text amendments to implement specific plans, regulate short-term rentals, update parking regulations, and to set forth objective standards and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations consistent with State law. She has a strong background in environmental planning and has contributed to and managed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review for development, infrastructure, and energy projects throughout California.
Kelly’s recent experience includes managing major projects for the cities of Burlingame, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, and San Bruno. She is currently assisting various cities in managing the entitlements review for a 1.5 million square-foot Life Science/office project, a 605-unit mixed-use project including a rezoning and General Plan amendment, and a 180,000 square foot commercial office project.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
» 1300 Old Bayshore Highway Life Science/Office Project, Contract Planner, Burlingame, CA
» Woodland Park Euclid Improvements Mixed-Use Project, Contract Planner, East Palo Alto, CA
» University Circle Phase II Office Project, Contract Planner, East
KELLY BEGGS
Principal Planner/Planning Manager
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
Palo Alto, CA
» Objective Design and Development Standards, Contract Planner, Brisbane, CA
» Sierra Point Towers Life Science/Office Development, Contract Planner, Brisbane, CA
» Guadalupe Quarry Annexation and General Plan/Zoning
Amendment Project, Brisbane, CA
» Short-term Rental Ordinance, Contract Planner, Burlingame, CA » Comprehensive Zoning Code Update + Mixed-use Rezoning Project, Contract Planner, San Bruno, CA
» Parking Ordinance Update, Contract Planner, San Bruno, CA » San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center, Contract Planner, San Bruno, CA
» Stratford School San Bruno Expansion, Contract Planner, San Bruno, CA
» 500 Kirkham Street, Entitlement Assistance, Oakland, CA » Irvington BART Station Area Plan and EIR, Associate Planner, Fremont, CA
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Geography/Land
Use, Oregon State
University
MEMBERSHIPS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Stephanie Davis has 20+ years of extensive project management experience. Her planning portfolio includes project management of high-level, multi-faceted commercial, multi-family, industrial, mixed-use and single-family residential development applications, wireless telecommunications, residential annexations, due diligence site analysis, Municipal Code Ordinances – both updates and new ordinances, Housing Element and General Plan updates, and other long-range planning studies.
Stephanie also has extensive experience with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) from exemptions to Negative and Mitigated Declarations to Environmental Impact Reports. Her experience includes preparation, compliance, implementation, coordination, and management of outside environmental consultants and their technical sub-consultants.
She served as lead staff planner in the comprehensive preparation of General Plan, Climate Action Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates for several cities which involved extensive community outreach, active research, and plan preparation efforts in the development of policy direction, as well as coordination and management of third-party consultants.
Stephanie’s breadth of experience carries over into the field of housing with direct work including the administration and implementation of housing programs, affordable housing and firsttime homebuyer loan programs, Housing Element preparation, and a comprehensive update of an inclusionary housing Ordinance.
STEPHANIE DAVIS, AICP
Principal Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
She is experienced in preparing comprehensive reports, planning studies, and presentation of materials to decision-making boards, commissions, and community members.
Stephanie has served as a Principal Planner for the Towns of Atherton, Portola Valley, City of San Carlos, and provided specific project management for the City of Millbrae, City of Menlo, County of San Mateo, City of Sunnyvale, Town of Woodside. As a Principal Planner, she has actively provided supervisory guidance and technical assistance to staff, served as the staff liaison to Planning Commissions, City Councils, and other appointed community committees and commissions, prepared process manuals and protocols for both internal staff and the public, and directly assisted in the preparation of annual Department work programs and fee study analysis.
For private clients, she has prepared due diligence site analyses and technical assistance in both the preparation of materials, and navigation of, development process through other jurisdictions.
She is skilled in Geographical Information Systems (GIS), electronic mapping, and quantitative analysis.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Architectural
Studies, Minor in
American History,
University of Arkansas,
Fay Jones School of
Architecture
Master of Urban and
Regional Planning,
University of New
Orleans, College of
Urban and Planning
Affairs
MEMBERSHIPS &
CERTIFICATIONS
American Planning
Association, National
Chapter and Louisiana
State Chapter
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Dara Sanders has 16+ years experience in long-range planning, land use planning, GIS analysis, and community engagement in Arkansas, California, Louisiana, and Tennessee. She brings creative solutions specific to each project to ensure success, balances the needs of communities and applicants, and strives to help cities achieve their vision, goals, and regulations.
Dara’s recent project responsibilities include contract planning for the cities of Brisbane, Belmont, and San Bruno and serving as project manager for updating the Scotts Valley Town Center Specific Plan.
She has managed interdisciplinary teams to produce corridor plans, neighborhood redevelopment master plans, and general plans. She implemented those plans through zoning amendments, authoring form-based zoning districts and design regulations, capital improvement plans, and private development requests. She led longrange planning projects in Nashville and also has the distinction of establishing the first planning department in a Nashville suburb during a time of its unprecedented growth.
Dara values building community relationships through the planning process, and she has successfully implemented tools and programs that have improved community trust, involvement, and buy-in.
DARA SANDERS
Principal Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., Social Welfare,
Public Policy Minor,
University of California,
Berkeley
Master of Public Affairs,
Certificate in Urban
Policy and Planning,
School of Public and
International Affairs,
Princeton University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Chris Dacumos has 15+ years experience in government and has spent the past 7 years in community development. He was motivated to pursue a career in government to practice efficiency, community engagement, visioning, and sustainability. Chris joined Good City Company in 2020 focusing on planning and assisting with business operations and development. He is adept at working across departments with the ability to digest complex ideas or processes and build partnerships with different functional areas.
With Good City Company, Chris manages the development review process or assists in the management for large projects including residential and commercial development in cities along the Peninsula.
Some of these projects include:
» 1.2 million square feet (sf) of office project
» Mixed-use development consisting of 800,000 of office, lifescience, research development, and 95 units of housing » 52-acre development including open space, parks, office, research and development, and housing
» 330,000 sf life science project
» 191 hotel room development
Chris coordinates the environmental review of a school district workforce housing project, reviews large office development plans, and minor modifications to wireless cellular facilities. In addition to his planning duties, he also assists public agencies with contracts, policy, process, staffing, budget analyses, fee studies or updates, recruitment, and general project management.
With Good City, Chris also assists in business operations including
CHRISTOPHER DACUMOS
Senior Planner/Project Manager
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
human resources, developing proposals, and researching and implementing new technologies to improve operational efficiency.
Chris began as an aide to Congressman George Miller (retired) and then went on to graduate school where he studied public policy.
After graduate school, he assisted with mangrove restoration in wetlands in the Philippines. Following this experience, he went on to work for the San Mateo County Transportation District (Samtrans, Caltrain, and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority), the Town of Hillsborough, and the City of Redwood City. With the City of Redwood City, Chris managed the Ferry Financial Feasibility Study and Cost-Benefit & Economic Impact Analyses. The effort involved coordination between the City, the Port of Redwood City, and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Environmental
Science, Technology and
Policy, California State
University, Monterey
Bay
Masters in Urban
Planning with a
certificate in Real
Estate Developement,
San Jose State
University
MEMBERSHIPS
American Planning
Association
SPUR
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Jacob Garcia is an Associate Planner with a background in land use planning, natural resource planning and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Mr. Garcia has been with Good City Company since 2019 and provides contract planning services to the City of San Carlos, City of Pacifica, and the Town of Portola Valley.
Jacob currently manages development projects throughout the entitlement process. As such his duties include current planning assistance, reviews design and Zoning conformance review, and preparing and presenting staff reports before various design review boards, planning commissions and city councils. He assists jurisdictions with zoning amendments and policy research and implementation. He takes pride in providing excellent customer service and serving as a liaison to community groups and residents on behalf of cities and their various committees.
Jacob also has experience supporting the management of
sustainability programs, staffing cities’ environmental committees, and facilitating wet weather construction site inspections and annual stormwater reporting. Before joining Good City, Jacob worked for multiple public and private land management agencies providing natural resource and conservation planning services such as public outreach, data collection, data analysis, and research.
Highlights of his past work include:
» Monitoring and identifying surface water impacts for the Forest Service in Northern California,
» Drafting watershed management and monitoring plans for the
JACOB GARCIA
Senior Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
Bureau of Land Management in Southeast Utah,
» Monitoring urban wildlife corridors in San Diego County, and » Creating geospatial databases to inventory future mitigation efforts.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., Architecture, UC
Berkeley
M.I.A., Economic and
Political Development,
Urban and Social Policy,
Columbia University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Nick Hamilton is an urban development and policy professional bringing 15+ years of experience in leading plan development and launching programs to advance equity, sustainability, and shared prosperity in communities across the U.S. and internationally.
Recent long-range planning experience includes General Plan and Housing Element updates, and municipal code updates to further Objective Design and Development Standards. Recent current planning experience includes coordinating local jurisdiction review of the redevelopment of former school sites into housing, high density Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects, and associated CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) environmental reviews. He has also lent his expertise in community engagement and outreach to several initiatives for the cities of Brisbane, San Mateo, and San Bruno.
Nick brings a long track record establishing collaborative community revitalization initiatives in communities across the U.S. through his previous work for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and as Director of Urban Policy at Columbia University’s The American Assembly.
His architectural, urban design, and planning expertise was cultivated during his time at Davis Brody Bond, a nationally recognized architectural firm headquartered in New York. Projects there included multiple overseas diplomatic facilities for the US Department of State, Columbia University Northwest Corner Building, and the Lenox Terrace Apartments superblock infill project.
Nick is active in professional and civic organizations and has spoken
NICK HAMILTON
Senior Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
at myriad conferences including the American Planning Association Advocacy and Policy Conference (2019) and has participated in the Urban Land Institute’s National Advisory Services Panel in Pittsburgh (2016). He currently serves on the boards of the Consortium for Sustainable Urbanization, which fosters solutions-oriented discourse between UN Habitat and US-based architectural and development organizations and professionals, and the Berkeley Student Cooperative Alumni Association. He was included as a Next City Vanguard in 2013.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Graphic
Communication with
a concentration in
Archicitectural Design,
North Carolina A&T
State University
M.U.R.P., Urban and
Regional Planning,
Virginia Commonwealth
University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Christopher Nicholas has 10+ years of experience working land use and transportation policy planning, project management, and transportation demand management. He began his career as a Housing & Community Development intern in Prince George County, Virginia working on long range plans, zoning, and policy research. Following graduate school, Christopher joined Crater Planning District Commission (CPDC) in Petersburg, Virginia where he worked on transportation plans, regional plans, policies, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Studies, bicycle/pedestrian plans, public participation planning and project management.
Prior to joining Good City, Christopher solved complex
transportation issues around vehicle miles traveled, California Environmental Quality Act, climate change involving development projects and the State Highway System for Caltrans. During his time at Caltrans, he was a guest speaker at the American Planning Association’s National Conference in San Francisco, partook in a 10-month rotation program involving the Overall Work Program, MPO/RTPA Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant and reviewing local development projects’ impacts on the State Highway System.
He also served as acting Branch Chief at Caltrans, managing a statewide staff of over 80 people and with a budget of over $7 million.
Mr. Nicholas grew up in Vallejo and spent 12 years on the East Coast between school and jobs. In his free time, Christopher enjoys traveling with his fiancée and daughter, working out, reading, and exploring new places.
CHRISTOPHER NICHOLAS, MURP
Senior Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., History, University
of Texas
M.S., Community and
Regional Planning,
University of Texas
M.S., Public Affairs,
Lyndon B. Johnson
School of Public Affairs,
University of Texas
MEMBERSHIPS &
CERTIFICATIONS
International Economic
Development Council
Certified Economic
Developer
Bilingual in English &
Spanish
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Sabina Mora serves as a Senior Economic Development Planner and Senior Planner. Sabina has spent the last 12 years working for state, regional, and municipal agencies in communities across New York, Texas, and California. Her areas of focus are planning, economic development planning, small business assistance programs, business expansion and attraction programs, and downtown and neighborhood development strategies.
Sabina provides economic development and small business services for the City of South San Francisco, the City of Foster City and San Mateo County. She is also working with the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno on their Housing Elements, specifically focusing on meeting fair housing requirements, and analyzing housing opportunity sites from a fair housing perspective.
Sabina is also assisting the City of San Mateo General Plan Update team with conducting targeted outreach and public engagement.
In the past, Sabina worked as an Economic Development Specialist for the City of Mountain View, Senior Planner for the City of Austin, Senior Economic Development Specialist for the City of Albany’s (New York) Capitalize Albany – an economic development corporation, Project Manager for the State of New York’s economic development agency (Empire State Development), and Economic Development Specialist for the City of Binghamton (New York).
Sabina was born in Argentina, immigrating to the US as a child and lived in five different states growing up. She has lived in Mountain View with her family since 2019.
SABINA MORA
Senior Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A., Geography,
University of Richmond
Advanced Certificate in
Transportation & Land
Use Planning, San Jose
State University
Master of Urban
Planning, San Jose State
University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Ralph Robinson joined Good City in 2021. As Associate Planner, he works extensively with local communities on conformance with state requirements related to their Housing Elements, Senate Bill 9 regarding residential developments, Accessory Dwelling Units, and other associated issues. Additionally, he manages public meetings, reviews development applications, and serves as a valuable resource and first point of contact for the public. He has experience in Atherton, Portola Valley, San Carlos, and Alameda.
While earning his master’s in urban planning at San Jose State University, he worked with two professors through the Mineta Transportation Institute to advance original research on local solutions for transportation financing and issues of walkability and sustainability in the Bay Area. He also worked with CommUniverCity managing the creation of a robust assessment of a historically underserved Eastside San José community.
For his efforts as a student, he was recognized with an (American Planning Association) Outstanding Planning Student Award and his project was recognized with both a 2020 San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) Impact Award and an Award of Excellence by the APA (American Planning Association) California Chapter Northern Section.
Prior to his master’s program, Ralph was Vice President of Research, Strategy & Content with ZEITGUIDE, a coaching and consultation firm targeted to chief-level executives. He has also worked as a classroom teacher, tutor and in volunteer capacities with young
RALPH ROBINSON
Associate Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
students.
Ralph is a Massachusetts native whose principal focus is rethinking land use policies to make our communities livable for everyone, and capable of providing the economic, educational, mental, physical, and social benefits we all require.
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A, Geography,
Urban Environment,
Transportation, and
Land-Use Planning,
San Francisco State
University
M.A., Geography,
San Francisco State
University
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Eliza Bailey joins Good City as an Assistant Planner helping with current and advance planning projects. Eliza earned her master’s degree in geography and has spent over 11 years in high volume guest-facing roles and is eager to combine her years of facilities and operations, and project management experience. Her planning interests include housing, climate change mitigation, environmental justice, and food justice.
Eliza has completed numerous research studies on various geographical topics examining how land-use planning, transportation, water resources, food resources, climate, race and ethnicity, and gender affect housing choices.
Key research projects include:
» Personal Narratives: Discovering San Francisco’s Changing Spaces for Queer Women – an oral history of the lived experiences of 20 participants and how the city’s changing urban and economic landscape pushed most of them out of San Francisco.
» Qualitative analysis of San Francisco’s Hunters Point Shipyard Development project, its community impact, and how the
developers dealt with a lengthy toxic waste cleanup process. » The filling of Islais Creek, San Francisco from 1890 to 1930 – what once was a flowing river through multiple San Francisco neighborhoods now runs through an enclosed system under the street.
Outside of work, Eliza enjoys playing softball, trivia, and traveling.
ELIZA BAILEY
Assistant Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.A, Environmental
Analysis and Design,
Urban and Regional
Planning Minor,
University of California,
Irvine
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Jamie is an urban planning professional with over eight years combined experience in Current Planning, Watershed Management, and Affordable Housing programming. She joins Good City Company as an Assistant Planner providing front counter services, zoning verifications, plan reviews, drafting of staff reports, and presentations to Planning Commissions. Additionally, she is a resource for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System compliance. Currently, Jamie is a contract Planner for the City of San Carlos and Town of Portola Valley, and assists as a deputy project manager for the City of San Leandro
Jamie previously worked in Watershed Management for Fuscoe Best Management Practice compliance, assisted in preparing complex environmental reports, and served as lead consultant for the City of Yorba Linda stormwater management and water quality programs.
Jamie also previously operated a General Contracting business and professional organizing company that specialized in remodels, move management, and general residential organizing services.
During college, Jamie interned for the California Coastal Commission Enforcement Division, City of Newport Beach Building Department, and Comprehensive Housing Services specializing in affordable housing services.
Outside of work, Jamie loves hiking, yoga, backpacking, snowboarding, and gardening.
JAMIE BOURNE
Assistant Planner
PGCC 7-5-2023
OUR TEAM
EDUCATION
B.S., Real Estate
Development,
University of Southern
California
B.A., Music, University
of Southern California
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Dara Phung is a Marketing Specialist and Graphic Designer with Good City Company. Her experience includes preparing a range of external marketing communications, developing social media content, editing videos, and producing custom graphics.
Dara is adept at working with clients to strengthen community engagement efforts through design. Recently, Dara created a bilingual word search activity and coloring page for the City of San Mateo’s annual Eggstravaganza event as part of the City’s Housing Element outreach. The flyer featured housing- and San Mateo-related terms in English and Spanish surrounded by illustrations of various housing types to foster meaningful conversations between City staff and family members about the housing element.
In 2021, Dara worked for Good City Company as a Planning Technician. She was placed with the City of San Carlos, where she provided counter service for current planning inquiries, reviewed design and working drawings for zoning conformance, and prepared and presented staff reports before committees. Dara previously interned for the City of Brisbane, where she supported Planning staff on projects including the Objective Design and Development Standards project, the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and the Housing Element Cycle 6 Update.
Dara obtained her Bachelor’s in Real Estate Development and Bachelor’s in Music from the University of Southern California, where she took courses in urban planning and received the Lewis Mumford Award for Most Outstanding Essay in Planning History.
DARA PHUNG
Marketing Specialist/Graphic Designer
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 C
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: FY23/24 CIP Engineering Services Action required by July 5, 2023.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Neill Engineers Corp for FY23/24 Capital Improvement Plan engineering services in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency.
DISCUSSION
The City of Pacific Grove (City) Public Works Department utilizes engineering services to execute vital Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects by providing technical consultation, project design, and surveying services. Neil Engineers Corp (Neil Engineers) has provided the City with engineering services since 1964. From 1964 through 1991, Neil Engineers augmented City staffing during fluctuations in workload to help minimize cost while maintaining existing staffing levels.
In 1991, the role of Neil Engineers expanded from a project-based service to the function of City Engineer via a formalized professional services agreement. In 2008, a new professional services agreement with Neil Engineers was executed, with the same scope, to reflect an increased monthly retainer of $1,000, previously $750. The current contract, executed in 2008, has been renewed by yearly extensions and has maintained the same $1,000 monthly retainer. The City has harnessed this agreement for a variety of administrative engineering functions including project consultation, surveying, plan review, and public hearings.
In addition to the existing executed professional services agreement that allows for administrative engineering functions, staff is recommending entering into an agreement to authorize specific project-based engineering services related to the FY 2023/24 CIP in an amount not to exceed $545,871 plus a 15% contingency. This contract will allow the progression of the following CIP projects:
FY23/24 Street Rehabilitation
FY23/24 Crack and Slurry Seal
Street Rehabilitation on David Avenue
Phase 9 Sewer Improvements
David Avenue Sidewalks
Priority Storm Drain Improvements on Syida
Safety Improvements at Robert Down Elementary School
Design of Sidewalk Extensions for Outside Dining Uses
PGCC 7-5-2023
Standard bidding procedures were suspended in accordance with Pacific Grove Municipal Code (PGMC) section 2.16.080 “Bidding procedures- Dispensation When” which provides that the purchasing agent, the City Manager, may dispense with bid procedures for purchase of services when in his sole discretion and judgment it is in the best interest of the City when (d) a service (such as attorney, accountant, architect or specialized consultant) involves specialized knowledge or personal skill. Neill Engineers has worked with the city since 1964. Their vast and incomparable institutional knowledge and robust experience with the City provide them with specialized knowledge and skill regarding the City’s existing infrastructure that is necessary to most efficiently and effectively design, plan and execute CIP projects.
If approved, the City’s standard professional service 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.
Failure to authorize this agreement will result in significant delays in the above-referenced CIP projects.
OPTIONS
1. Do not authorize the agreement.
Direct staff to issue a request for proposals/requests for qualifications for CIP engineering services. Please note this option would significantly delay the above-referenced projects. This option may also result in additional fiscal impacts if engineering services exceed engineering allocations within the approved CIP project budgets.
2. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Engineering services are included within individual CIP project budgets, approved as part of the annual budget. Therefore, no additional fiscal impact is anticipated.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Infrastructure
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 D
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Gho, Public Works Director/Deputy City Manager MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Tree Maintenance Service Agreement Action required by July 5, 2023.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize an agreement with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties and facilities in an amount not-to-exceed $220,000 per fiscal year, with the option to extend the agreement for 4 additional years
DISCUSSION
The City’s Tree Services contractor plays a vital role in ensuring the care of the City’s trees by proper maintenance of all trees within the public right-of-way or on City facilities. This work includesstandard, priority, and emergency pruning and tree removal. Other tree maintenance work may include, but is not limited to tree planting, staking installation, maintenance or removal, pest control and fertilization.
Solidifying an agreement for tree maintenance services will assist our staff in this rigorous task of the tree maintenance in accordance with the Pacific Grove Municipal Code Title 12, Trees and the Urban Forest and the City’s Urban Forestry Standards. The contractor will establish a level of tree maintenance that will present an attractive and desirable landscape and streetscape. The contractor will also assist staff on emergency tree work to remove and secure any hazardous tree(s) or render the tree-related conditionssafe for the public.
In 2018, the City Council authorized an agreement with Topes Tree Service Inc. to provide Tree Maintenance Services for trees in the public right-of-way and on City-owned properties and facilities in an amount not-to-exceed $200,000 per fiscal year, with the option to extend the agreement for 4 additional years. The last extension available on this agreement was harnessed for FY22/23 Services.
As a result, the City distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP) for tree maintenance services on May 25, 2023.
On June 15, 2023, the RFP period closed. The City received two proposals:
PGCC 7-5-2023
Name of Firm Total Daily Rate Bid Amount*
Topes Tree Service $7,760
West Coast Arborist $10,968
*total daily rate bid amount includes all labor and equipment required to trim, remove trees and haul away wood/debris. The daily rate does not reflect the actual cost to remove trees or perform trimming.
We use this number for proposal purposes and award of bid.
Topes Tree Service has been qualified as the lowest responsible bidder. Topes Tree Service is a full-service tree care company that specializes in residential and commercial tree work. In addition to successfully completing work for the City, Topes Tree Service Inc. has successfully performed work for a variety of other local agencies including the Pebble Beach Company, Monterey County Public Works, and the City of Carmel. If approved, the City’s standard maintenance service 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.
OPTIONS
1. Take no action.
2. Propose modifications.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
$220,000 has been budgeted in the FY23/24 Operating Budget to allow for this annual Tree Maintenance Services agreement.
This amount is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated needed tree work in the public right-of-way and on city-owned properties/facilities.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Environmental Stewardship
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 E
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: September 20 Meeting Cancellation
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
1. Cancel September 20, 2023 Council Meeting.
2. Other action as directed by City Council related to this subject.
DISCUSSION
Council meeting dates are here. This calendar was approved by Council on December 7, 2022.
A quorum will likely not be present on September 20, 2023 due to attendance at the CalCities Annual Conference in Sacramento September 20-22.
Let’s plan ahead and cancel this meeting. Note that Charter Article 13 specifies “Council may cancel one of those meetings, as circumstances may require, by five (5) affirmative votes”. A replacement meeting can be scheduled later if needed.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Minimal additional cost to reschedule Council meeting if needed.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 9 F
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bill Peake, Mayor
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Appointment to Recreation Board
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Approve appointment of A. Gamble to Recreation Board ending January 31, 2027.
DISCUSSION
The appointment of A. Gamble fills a vacancy on the Recreation Board.
City committees play a vital role in city government and provide opportunities for residents to become engaged in civic activities and work to improve local governance. We are very fortunate to have many highly qualified and talented residents willing to serve on City committees.
The term for Recreation Board members is 4 years as this is a Charter committee.
Mayoral appointments to City committees must be confirmed by Council (Charter Article 26). Further regulations and policy regarding appointments can be found in PGMC Chapter 3.02 and Policy 000-5.
OPTIONS
N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact.
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Not Applicable.
Attachments
Redacted Application
PGCC 7-5-2023
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 10 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Joyce Halabi, Deputy Director Public Works
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Museum Board Minutes: May 10,August 9, November 8, 2022, and February 14, 2023
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.
Attachments
May 10, 2022 Minutes
August 9, 2022 Minutes
November 8, 2022 Minutes
February 14, 2023 Minutes
PGCC 7-5-2023
1 ACTION MINUTES
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
MUSEUM BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19
1. CALL TO ORDER
Present: Chair Lisa Max, Secretary Broeck Oder, and Board Members Calvin Tom, Donna Foote, and Dana Allen-Greil; also present, Museum Executive Director Carla Bitter, Pacific Grove Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi, Pacific Grove Volunteer Program Director Amy Colony, and City Council Liaison Joe Amelio.
Chair Max called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Calvin Tom moved approval of the agenda, member Donna Foote seconded the motion, and the agenda was unanimously approved.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi reported there were no announcements in this realm.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Liaison Joe Amelio had no announcements, but noted the May 11 City Council meeting would see consideration for continuing the outdoors dining arrangements established during the Covid crisis. Mr. Amelio also noted the City is considering offering an apology to Asian-Americans, and to Chinese-Americans in particular, for historical episodes of disregard for the rights of these fellow members of the Pacific Grove community, past and present.
PGCC 7-5-2023
2 5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Max reported citizens were on-line to offer comments at the meeting. Mr.
Randy Sabado noted that May is Asian-Pacific Islanders Month. Mr. Sabado also thanked the Museum for its help with the Walk of Remembrance, noting that his late wife loved the Museum, so he wanted to convey thanks and compliments for what the Museum does as a whole and for specifically being historically aware of the Asian and Pacific Islander communities in Pacific Grove. Mr. Michael Ipson also spoke, noting that he and others were also working for the Walk of Remembrance and spoke of how wonderfully helpful and supportive the Museum staff has been.
Chair Max noted some comments had been received by email and reported that one person noted some overlap of this Board’s last meeting and that of another city board. Chris Patton emailed that people would like to see more field guides and variety thereof at the Museum and reminded all that these materials should also be made available at the Lighthouse.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the Minutes of the February 8, 2022 meeting of the Board brought a correction to the spelling of Dana Allen-Greil’s name, which was noted. Approval for the amended Minutes for February 8, 2022 was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved.
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Museum Director’s Monthly Reports: Museum Director Carla Bitter acknowledged the many citizens working on the Walk of Remembrance, expressing appreciation for their efforts. In terms of public attendance at the Museum, Director Bitter noted the previous quarter saw some decline due to the Covid resurgence in January and February, 2022. March attendance, however, was “great.” Director Bitter also noted that the Watershed Guardian Program in teamwork with Salinas schools has been a big success and is an especially important way to educate students and entire families. Other projects are in the works, and Director Bitter will report on them as they occur. There were no questions or comments on the Director’s report. Dr. Bitter noted that the next report on the Monarch Joint Venture will come at the October meeting of this board. Generally speaking, there is abundant interest in many things going on at the Museum, which was well-received by the members of the Board. Director Bitter noted in response to a question that membership in the Museum is currently just under 400, but the “Adopt-a-Bird” folks are “considered members,” which brings the total to a more accurate count of PGCC 7-5-2023
3 somewhere between 700-800 members.
B. Deputy Director of Public Works Report
Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi reported on the Point Pinos Lighthouse, noting outdoor only tours are available only on Saturdays and Sundays from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Each tour accommodates 10 people and requires about 30-40 minutes. The limited space inside the Lighthouse prevents interior tours due to COVID concerns and Deputy Director Halabi noted the limit on interior tours is anticipated to remain in place in June. There is hope the operational hours of the Lighthouse can be expanded on Saturdays, and the reports from docents are very positive. There were no public comments.
C. Museum Performance Metrics
Director Bitter reported that 295 adults took part in the Hardcore Natural History lectures and other courses the Museum offered such as “California Naturalists,” as well as others. The Museum had 13,000+ visitors in the first quarter as well as 14,000+ Monarch butterflies that visited the Monarch Sanctuary. It is the hope of all at the Museum that the current year will yield 50,000 Monarchs. Director Bitter noted the impending twentieth anniversary of the Limpets Program and has hopes of expanding it, as over 20,000 hours of volunteer time were recorded over the last year. In summation, Director Bitter noted one of the Museum’s main goals is to try to have “something for everyone,” which seems to be working as she noted the Monterey Herald and Carmel Pine Cone surveys both acclaimed it “Best Museum” via votes of their readerships. Chair Max called for any comments or questions from the public, but there were none. Member Foote inquired about Covid considerations for the sold-out summer camp programs at the Museum, and Director Bitter noted that fifth (5th) graders and under would be wearing masks.
D. Subcommittee to establish Museum Board goals
Chair Max and Member Allen-Greil reported being well into the research aspect; they have met with a number of people, but would like to postpone an official report until the August, 2022 meeting. Vice Chair Tom noted an important aspect is to ensure the alignment of the subcommittee’s work with the Museum’s strategic plan.
Member Allen-Greil thanked Chair Max and Deputy Director Halabi for their support. There was no public comment.
E. Title 1 School field trips to the Lighthouse and Museum Discussions among concerned groups are on-going, and the Board would like to PGCC 7-5-2023
4 receive additional information. Questions regarding costs and the role the Museum Board can play arose and will be kept in mind. Some questions have been referred to Deputy Director Halabi for research; it will also be important for the Museum Board. The Board voted unanimously to continue research and discussion in this realm.
F. In-person Board Meetings
Chair Max asked the members if the Museum Board should resume having inperson meetings at the City Council chamber. There was no public comment on the topic but Member Allen-Greil expressed preference for continuing the virtual meetings. Mayor Peake, having joined the meeting via Zoom noted that this is just an opinion poll at this time, nothing binding is contemplated in the moment. Chair Max proposed an informal “straw poll” on the questions of returning to in-person meetings, and the result was affirmative votes from Chair Max, Vice Chair Tom, Secretary Oder, and Member Foote; Member Allen-Greil cast a negative vote.
The meeting adjourned at 6:14 PM (1814 hours).
The next regular meeting is Tuesday, August 9, 2022, at 5:00 PM PGCC 7-5-2023
1 MUSEUM BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19 considerations.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Present: Chair Lisa Max, Vice Chair Calvin Tom, Secretary Broeck Oder, and Board Members Donna Foote and Dana Allen-Greil; City Council Liaison Council Member Joe Amelio; Executive Director Carla Bitter; Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi; and Volunteer Program Coordinator Amy Colony.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Chair Tom noted that for Regular Agenda item 7A there were no Director’s Monthly Reports for April, May, and June 2022. Museum Director Bitter said that a technical issue, soon to be resolved, was the source of the problem. Chair Max proposed to move Agenda item “G” up the list to follow Agenda item B. These changes and agenda as remaining approved by consensus.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Deputy Director of Public Works Halabi reported there were no announcements to be made.
4. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Council Member Amelio reported that at the August 3 meeting of the City Council consent items were approved relating to electrical work proposed by Public Works relating to electric vehicle charging stations in the parking lot areas near the Grove Market as well as a review of fines for violators. Member Amelio also reported the funding proposal for the Home Key endeavor was denied by a 6-1 vote.
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no general public comments.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Museum Board Minutes for May 10, 2022 were unanimously approved with a correction to Item 7D to show Deputy Public Works Director Halabi’s last name as “Halabi,” not “Halaby”
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Museum Director’s Monthly Reports
Director Bitter highlighted that in the previous three months, approximately 22,000 guests visited the Museum, of whom 55% came from outside Monterey County. Museum membership averaged 386 per month, with 5 businesses as members as well. Director Bitter noted “Dinosaur Days” success, as with the events/displays related to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the annual “Walk of Remembrance.” In relation to development and engagement, the Museum received approximately $114,000.00 from private donations; $65,910.00 from the City, and PGCC 7-5-2023
2 $2,400 from the Kiwanis. In Museum programs, 220 children became “Naturalists” through the Nature Exchange and 19 adults became “Climate Interpreters.” In the post-COVID period, the Museum’s outreach is growing again, with 53 individuals becoming “Junior Naturalists” and 13 becoming “Teen Interns.” The Museum’s digital media drawing power is up 220%, and the Museum received approximately 25,000 web visits. The Museum continues to expand resources online, adding 1,546 images to the database and making 168 new items visible online. There were no public comments.
B. Public Works Deputy Director’s Update on the Point Pinos Lighthouse Public Works Deputy Director Halabi reported the interior spaces and the gift shop at the Lighthouse re-opened to post-COVID visitors on July 24, with Saturday hours (11:00 AM to 3:00 PM), as well as Sunday hours (1:00 PM to 3:00 PM). Board Member Donna Foote noted the visitors have been numerous, and more docents are needed; Deputy Director Halabi concurred, noting concerted efforts are already working to train and deploy additional docents. She also noted that more stories of the Lighthouse have been posted online. Deputy Director Halabi also noted the Pacific Grove Chamber of Commerce has helped promote the Lighthouse as a site to visit, so the City is endeavoring significantly to attract and train folks to be volunteers at the Lighthouse. Chair Max requested Director Bitter to parallel the City’s effort with a “push” in a Museum newsletter, and Dr. Bitter heartily concurred. There was no public comment.
C. Update from Subcommittee to Establish Museum Board Goals (This item, on agenda as Item “G,” was moved up the agenda per request of member Dana AllenGreil with the unanimous concurrence of the other Museum Board members.) Subcommittee members Allen-Greil and Max met with Deputy Director of Public Works Halabi and Museum Director Bitter and presented the following items for Board consideration.
1. The Museum Board should visit the Museum each year as a group task.
2. A key goal for 2023 should be careful, consistent monitoring of vibrations at the Museum caused by construction work across the street from the Museum.
3. In the 2023-2025 time frame, a key focus must be on the Museum’s renewal of accreditation.
The subcommittee also recommended that the Museum Board should work to align the Museum’s facility emergency plan with the larger city emergency plan; help with collections issues and property, and work on clear procedures for requests for funding for research. Additional areas of focus should be a representative on the Standards and Practices Committee and more interface between the Museum Board and the Museum Foundation Board. There was no public comment on any of the above items. Vice Chair Tom suggested the Board should seek a legal review to ensure clarity on what a representative to the Standards and Practices Committee should/could do.
Chair Max noted clarity would be necessary, but is definitely attainable. There was no public comment
D. (formerly “C”) Museum Audited Financials. Director Bitter reported the Museum received a “clean bill of health” in this realm. There was no public comment.
E. (formerly “D”) Museum Business and Fund Development. Director Bitter reported that the Museum is “on cycle” for this year, with the number of partners and work with the city both on the rise. The Museum is working diligently to be an “employer of choice,” improving benefits, limiting turnovers, expanding audiences and diversity, and working to keep more employees for longer periods of time. Director Bitter noted that in the current year some 60% of the Museum PGCC 7-5-2023
3 employees are in their first year of employment at the Museum, and it would be a step forward to get that percentage down in the coming years. Director Bitter also noted it would be helpful for the Museum to have a representative on the Foundation Board. There was no public comment.
F. (formerly “E”) Regarding the Exhibits Plan, Director Bitter enumerated finishing the lighting system, removing the “makeshift” entrance, creating exterior improvements with plants, etc., with the goal of being as multi-purpose for citizens as possible while also being a top-rank museum.
This includes further work on the Children’s Garden. There was no public comment.
G. (formerly “F”) On the Orca specimen tooth loan research request, Deputy Director Halabi noted this is approved, thus reinforcing the Museum’s dedication to aiding in serious research.
The Museum Board voted unanimously to approve the request as well, supporting the role the Museum should play in serious scientific research. There was no public comment.
H. (as originally) The update on Title I School Field Trips to the Lighthouse program noted the program has been working well for both the schools and the Museum, and the Museum is able to assist with aid up to $600.00 where necessary. The requests for trips and possible aid will come through the City. Director Bitter noted the Museum can partner on Title I School Visits to the Museum as well as the Lighthouse. These worthwhile trips are a further reason to enlist more citizens to become docents at the Lighthouse. There was no public comment.
8. NEXT MEETING
Tuesday, November 8, 2022, at 5:00 pm.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting officially adjourned at 6:29 PM.
PGCC 7-5-2023
1 MUSEUM BOARD MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:00 p.m.
Meeting held through ZOOM.com teleconferencing due to COVID-19 considerations.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Present: Chair Lisa Max, Vice Chair Calvin Tom, and Board Members Donna Foote and Dana Allen-Greil; Executive Director Carla Bitter; Collections & Research Manager Nate King; Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi; and Volunteer Program Coordinator Amy Colony.
Not present: Secretary Broeck Oder and City Council Member Joe Amelio (liaison).
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved with no changes.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Deputy Director of Public Works Halabi reported there were no new announcements. Chair Max announced that she will no longer be on the Board when her term ends 1/31/2023. The February meeting will be chaired by Vice-Chair Tom. Annual Board elections will be held at the February 14, 2023 meeting.
4. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
None: both verbal and written.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Museum Board Minutes for August 9, 2022 were unanimously approved by those present.
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. Museum Director’s Monthly Reports for Q1
Highlights included the following:
1) Total Attendance of 5,014 with Science Saturdays the busiest day of the month 2) Development & Engagement with unrestricted foundation donations from Packard ($100k) and the Shelby Cullom Davis Charitable Fund ($300k)
3) Education & Outreach saw the Nature Exchange breaking 1,000 participants and the Monarchs public interest is driving Community Science and media attention 4) Online Audiences are holding steady with people searching for monarchs and opt-in newsletter has 4,687 participants
5) Infrastructure Projects include a new Safety Committee formation and IIPP (Injury, Illness, & Prevention Program). The Strategic Fore-sighting project will kick off in 2023.
PGCC 7-5-2023
2 B. Public Works Deputy Director’s Update on the Point Pinos Lighthouse Deputy Director Halabi reported the online and in-person visitation metrics. An effort is being made to recruit more docents so that the Lighthouse hours can be expanded. Deputy Director Halabi noted as a fyi that the Light House Visitation statistics cannot be compared apples to apples since pandemic numbers were counted as those that enter the ground versus post-pandemic they are counted when they pay the admission to enter inside the Lighthouse. A 2nd cashier has been hired.
C. Collections Care Report
Nate King, Collections and Research Manager reported the museum collection activity metrics.
Highlights of the report included collection displays support for First Friday events and an agreement with STEI to display items from the Pat Antonio Fossil Collection. Prep work in support of the upcoming Wonder Exhibit is in progress.
D. PG Museum Facilities Management Plan
Deputy Director Halabi Director reported on the following projects:
1) Mezzanine Upgrades- funded for FY22/23
2) Basement/Collection Area Moisture Control- funded for FY22/23 3) History Roof Repair- need more funds to be approved by City Council 4) Fire Suppression Head Replacement- completed February 2022 5) Lead paint in Windows and Window Replacement- completed October 2022 Discussion followed on what are the current mitigation strategies for water leaks and what actions can be taken during emergencies.
E. 2023 Museum Board Planning Calendar
Chair Max presented the Planning calendar and Director Bitter agreed that the dates were doable.
Discussion proceeded on how to incorporate the sub-committee’s recommendations on a yearly site visit. Chair Max thought it would be a special agenda item and asked for guidance from Deputy Director Halabi. She agreed that it would be a special meeting and that it could be noted on the Planning Calendar.
Board members present approved unanimously the Planning Calendar with a placeholder for adding details for a site visit.
F. Hybrid Museum Board Meetings
A formal vote was taken on staying virtual or going in person/hybrid for future meetings. The board members present voted unanimously to approve in-person/hybrid meeting.
8. NEXT MEETING
Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 5:00 pm.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting officially adjourned at 6:02 PM.
PGCC 7-5-2023
1 MUSEUM BOARD
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, February 14 2023 at 5:00 p.m.
THIS MEETING WAS HELD IN PERSON AND VIRTUALLY (HYBRID).
1. CALL TO ORDER
Present: Vice Chair Calvin Tom, and Board Members Donna Foote and David Messman; Executive Director Carla Bitter; Deputy Director of Public Works Joyce Halabi, Volunteer Program Coordinator Amy Colony and Mayor Bill Peake
Not present: Dana Allen-Greil and City Council Member Joe Amelio (liaison). One Board position vacant.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved with no changes.
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Deputy Director of Public Works Halabi reported there were no staff announcements.
4. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A public comment on technical difficulties hearing the meeting. No written comments.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. The Museum Board Minutes for November 8 2022 were unanimously approved
7. REGULAR AGENDA
A. City Board Officer Elections
1) Calvin Tom was elected Chair unanimously
2) David Messman was elected Vice Chair unanimously
3) No Secretary was appointed. Defer appointment till May 9th board meeting.
B. AB 2449- Teleconference Rules for Attendance at Meetings of Legislative Bodies Deputy Public Works Director Halabi updated the Museum Board on the City’s new meeting requirements that take effect as of March 2023. “Essentially, AB 2449 requires that starting in March 2023, the City Council and all City advisory boards must resume in-person hybrid meetings (allowing the public to participate either in person or virtually), with City Council Members and/or Board Members only being able to participate virtually when an in-person quorum of the board is present, and with ‘just cause’ or an ‘emergency circumstance’.” PGCC 7-5-2023
2 C. Museum Executive Director’s Q2 Monthly Reports
Executive Director reported the following highlights:
1) Total attendance of 7,921 which included 3,499 visitors and 2,956 field trip participants 2) Development and Engagement with $151K restricted grants and $149K MCGives obtained
3) Online audiences of 16k for social media and 41K website visits 4) Infrastructure projects underway include new IT system, January Bird Room Roof replacement, and Wonder exhibit installation
5) Education and Outreach with Nature Exchange created 73 new naturalists and Outreach hit a record high 448 participants across 11 offsite events D. Public Works Deputy Director’s Update on the Pt. Pinos Lighthouse Deputy Director Halabi reported the following:
1) As of Sunday, February 5th, Sunday hours were expanded from 1pm - 3pm to 11am - 3pm. This matches Saturday hours
2) Lighthouse is now 168 years old
3) The city is actively recruiting docents and looking at expanding hours with more volunteers
4) At Q&A, a board member inquired as to the number of days that the Lighthouse was open prior to the pandemic and if the goal was to get back to that baseline. Deputy Director of Public Works stated that prior to the pandemic the Lighthouse was open 5 days/week and the goal was to get back to 5 days/week. There would have to be the volunteer capacity in order to do it.
E. Museum Board Chair Annual Report 2023
Chair Tom presented the Annual Report for the 2022 calendar year with the following highlights:
1) The Board recommended funding the museum’s mezzanine upgrade 2) The Board recommended funding the Point Pinos Lighthouse Roof Repair Projects 3) The Board formed a subcommittee to formulate goals and the subcommittee recommended the following:
a. The Museum Board should visit the Museum each year as a group task b. The Museum Board should visit the Lighthouse each year as a group task c. A Board member should be appointed to the Museum’s Standards and Practices Committee
d. Closely monitor the vibrations at the Museum caused by upcoming construction work
F. Selecting City Museum Board liaison to the Museum Foundation Board’s Standards and Practices Committee
No selection made. Defer selection to May 9th Board meeting was unanimous.
G. FY23/24 Capital Improvement Program Board Recommendations 1) Unanimously recommended the following
a. Replace carpet/flooring for 2025/26 accreditation (old carpet installed in 1983) b. Water fountain (water bottle filling ability)
c. Increase Lighthouse re-roofing budget
PGCC 7-5-2023
3 8. NEXT MEETING
Tuesday, May 9, 2023, at 5:00 pm
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:52 pm
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 10 B
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Aaron Campbell, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: April 13, 2023 CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the minutes.
Attachments
PC Minutes
PGCC 7-5-2023
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, April 13, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Council Chamber – City Hall – 300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA This meeting was held in Council Chambers and via Zoom webinar.
1. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL – Chair Lilley called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Members Present: Davison, Fredrickson, Kubica, Lilley, Murphy, Nodzenski, and Sawyer Member(s) Absent: None
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Lilley asked if any Commissioners wanted to make any changes to the agenda.
Commissioner Sawyer made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kubica, to approve the agenda as presented. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. (7-0)
3. COMMISSION AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS (City-Related Items Only) A. Vice Chair Murphy announced that he attended a community meeting about forming an arts district in the city. The meeting was well-attended and those present expressed enthusiasm for an arts district. There will be a follow up meeting in June. This apparently grass-roots effort was perhaps started by the Economic Development Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, Pacific Grove Arts Center, and others.
B. Chair Lilley reminded the Commissioners that the Chair is responsible for setting the meeting agendas and to let him know if any of the Commissioners would like him to add an item that pertains to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to the agenda. He then announced that an updated copy of the workplan is provided in the Consent Agenda and that it is his intention to have an updated workplan in the agenda every month. He also announced that he attended the City Council meeting on March 22nd with Commissioner Sawyer for two items of import to the Planning Commission. The first was the Parklets matter. He announced that on March 9th, the Planning Commission voted to renew the Parklet Program subcommittee, and on March 20th Commissioner Sawyer and Chair Lilley sent a letter to the City Council providing comments on the Parklet Program. At the City Council meeting on March 22nd, he presented comments regarding the Commission’s recommendation that the Parklets be kept but with common sense safety and public health proposals and staff inconsistencies. The Council voted to establish a subcommittee to review recommendations on the Parklet Program. For the second item, he announced that he spoke as a private citizen regarding the change of PGCC 7-5-2023
housing consultants.
C. Staff liaison Sidor introduced new Assistant Planner Garrett McCown.
4. COUNCIL LIAISON ANNOUNCEMENTS – None
5. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
A. Public Comment
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Receive public comment, if applicable.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
The following individuals submitted written public correspondence:
• Councilmember Coletti on March 13, regarding an AMBAG 2023 Public Participation Plan survey.
• Anastacia Wyatt on March 15, regarding questions about the Baird and Driskell contract, including a notice of termination letter from Assistant City Attorney Rubens dated March 3.
• Councilmember Coletti on March 17, regarding 2022 California housing legislation highlights.
• Lisa Ciani on March 17, regarding Parklet Program revisions. • Inge Lorentzen Daumer on March 17, regarding the Parklet Program. • Lisa Ciani on March 19, regarding Parklet Program revisions. • Lisa Ciani on March 22, regarding lack of Planning Commission review of the Summer Lights event.
• Peggy Gibbs on March 23, regarding sharing parklet plans from Los Gatos which show drainage grates and set up, including 4 photos and an example architectural plan for a parklet.
• Tony Ciani on April 4, regarding the 1352 Lighthouse Avenue Phase I Historical Assessment RFQ.
• Jane Haines on April 10, regarding the Baird and Driskell contract and public records request, including exhibits.
• Councilmember Coletti on April 11, regarding the State of California suing Huntington Beach for failing to adopt a Housing Plan.
• Tony Ciani on April 13, regarding Hometown and Small Town grants.
Chair Lilley and Staff Liaison Sidor summarized the written correspondence received.
The following individuals provided verbal public comment at the meeting: Jane Haines, Inge Lorentzen Daumer, and Lisa Ciani.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. REPORTS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
A. Planning Commission 2023 Workplan
From: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
PGCC 7-5-2023
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive the revised 2023 Workplan.
Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
7. REPORTS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Minutes of the March 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes of the March 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Commissioner Sawyer pulled Item 7A from the Consent Agenda, and the Chair moved this item to 10B. See Item 10B below.
On a motion by Commissioner Fredrickson, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, the consent agenda was unanimously approved as amended on a roll call vote. (7-0)
REGULAR AGENDA
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Architectural Permit (AP) and Use Permit (UP) 22-0295 for 236 Cypress Avenue From: Alec Barton, AICP, Contract Planner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: R-1 / MDR (12.1 du/ac) Coastal Zone: No
Historic Resources Inventory: Yes
CEQA: Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15331, Historical Resources Restoration/Rehabilitation
Recommended Action: Approve Architectural Permit and Use Permit AP-UP 22-0295 subject to the recommended findings, conditions of approval, and Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 31 (Historic Resource Rehabilitation/Restoration) CEQA exemptions.
Reference: Alec Barton, AICP, Contract Planner
Chair Lilley introduced the item. After receiving an oral report from Contract Planner Barton, and testimony from the applicant (Hunter Eldridge, project architect) and owner (Sam Israelit), Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individual provided public comment: Lisa Ciani. Chair Lilley closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for deliberation.
After discussion, Commissioner Fredrickson made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Murphy, to approve the project and add a condition of approval to address on-site parking and future tree removal. Commissioner Sawyer recommended a friendly amendment to amend the motion to correct the permit findings to remove a reference to a garage and to require arborist review of tree protection measures. Chair Lilley recommended a friendly amendment to correct the lot size in Fact No. 4 in the PGCC 7-5-2023
permit. Both Commissioners Fredrickson and Murphy accepted these friendly amendments. On a roll call vote, the motion as amended was approved. (7-0)
9. CONTINUED AND ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the Housing Element and General Plan updates.
Reference: Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director After comments from CDD Housing Manager Kroeger, Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and no individuals provided public comment. Chair Lilley then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion.
No further action taken.
B. Parklet Program Subcommittee
From: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Receive an oral report on the activities of the Parkelt Program Subcommittee.
Reference: Claudia Sawyer, Planning Commissioner
Commissioner Sawyer provided an oral report. Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and no individuals provided public comment. Chair Lilley then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion. No further action taken.
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Create a Subcommittee or Subcommittees of the Planning Commission to address the Housing Element and General Plan Updates
From: Steven Lilley, Chair
Zoning District/General Plan Designation: N/A
Coastal Zone: N/A
Historic Resources Inventory: N/A
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Recommended Action: Create a new Housing Element and General Plan Subcommittee or separate subcommittees, appoint members, and establish the charter of the subcommittee(s).
Reference: Steven Lilley, Chair
PGCC 7-5-2023
Chair Lilley introduced the item and provided an oral report. Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and no individuals provided public comment. Chair Lilley then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion. No further action taken.
B. Minutes of the March 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Reference: Joseph Sidor, Contract Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes of the March 9, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Commissioner Sawyer pulled Item 7A from the Consent Agenda, and the Chair moved this item to 10B on the agenda. Chair Lilley introduced the item. Commissioner Sawyer recommended the following changes to the draft minutes of March 9th: 1) deletion of “…by April 1, 2023” from Item 3, Commission and Staff Announcements; 2) the addition of information denoting the written correspondence received to Item 5, General Public Comment; 3) the addition of a reference to the termination of the Baird + Driscoll contract under Item 9A, Housing and General Plan Updates; and 4) under Item 9B, the deletion of “No further action taken.” and the addition of a reference to staff submittal of the Planning Commission’s recommended projects to Public Works.
Chair Lilley opened the public hearing and the following individuals provided public comment: Lisa Ciani and Inge Lorentzen Daumer. Chair Lilley then closed the public comment portion of the meeting and returned the item to the Commission for discussion.
On a motion by Chair Lilley, seconded by Commissioner Sawyer, the minutes of the March 9th regular meeting were approved as amended on a roll call vote. (6-0-1; Fredrickson voted “Present” because of his absence from the March 9th meeting.)
11. PRESENTATIONS
A. Brown Act Presentation
Reference: Gregory Rubens
Recommended Action: Receive a presentation on the applicable requirements of the Brown Act.
CEQA: Does not constitute a “Project” per California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15378
Assistant City Attorney Greg Rubens provided an oral and slide presentation of Brown Act requirements.
12. NEXT MEETING – May 11, 2023
13. ADJOURNMENT – By order of the Chair, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 pm.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 11 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Dara Sanders, Contract Planner; Anastacia Wyatt, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Amendment CEQA: Statutory Exemption, CEQA Guidelines 15282(h) - Adoption Regarding Second Units in a Single or Multi Family Residential Zone
RECOMMENDATION
1. Request the City Attorney read the title of the ordinance;
2. Motion to waive further reading of the ordinance;
Introduce and hold first reading of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Section Chapter
23.80 Accessory Dwelling Units approving the proposed zoning text amendment; and
3. Direct the publication of the ordinance will be satisfied by publication of a summary approved by the City Attorney.
4. DISCUSSION
In 2017, The California State Legislature created a statewide regulatory framework for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which prompted local jurisdictions to adopt changes to the regulations and processes at the local level. The City of Pacific Grove subsequently amended its zoning code to integrate the State's ADU regulations. The Legislature adopted changes to the statewide regulations in 2022 related to the planning and permitting of ADUs, including AB 2221 and SB 897.
As a result of these statewide updates, the City's current ADU ordinance is out of compliance with State law. While the City currently applies the State's requirements for ADUs, the inconsistencies between the State's requirements and the City's requirements create confusion, especially for private property owners interested in constructing an ADU. City staff have prepared a zoning text amendment (ZTA) to the City's ADU ordinance to align with State law.
State Regulatory Changes for ADUs
These laws are AB 2221 and SB 897, and they took effect on January 1, 2023. The changes made in the new legislation are summarized below.
ADU Height. Local agencies must allow ADUs taller than 16 feet in certain circumstances. An 18-foot detached ADU must be allowed if the structure is within ½ mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor, or if the property has an existing multifamily, multi-story dwelling. For consistency in application, staff is recommending that the 18-foot height limit be applied to detached ADUs citywide.
A 25-foot ADU must be allowed if the ADU is attached to the primary dwelling, unless the allowed PGCC 7-5-2023
A 25-foot ADU must be allowed if the ADU is attached to the primary dwelling, unless the allowed height limit for the primary dwelling is lower than 25 feet. Currently, all zoning districts in the City permitting residential units allow a primary residence to be at least 25 feet in height.
Front Setback. Front setbacks now fall under statewide exemption as a zoning requirement that cannot be enforced if they prevent an ADU of at least 800 square feet from being built. In these situations, ADUs are permitted to be located in the front setback of a residential property.
Procedure. If an ADU application is denied, the City is now required to provide the applicant with a "full set of comments" listing the specific items that are "defective or deficient." These comments must also describe "how the application can be remedied" by the applicant. In other words, the City is obligated to present the applicant with the information needed and options available to obtain approval for their ADU project.
Another new State requirement pertains to demolition permits associated with the construction or conversion of a structure to an ADU. Some local jurisdictions have required a two-step process for ADU projects requiring a demolition permit. For example, any required demolition permit must be first reviewed and approved before a property owner can obtain a building permit for constructing a new dwelling. The application of a two-step process is no longer permitted in any jurisdiction, and the City is required by State law to process, review, and act on a demolition application and an ADU application concurrently.
Lastly, cities cannot deny an application to create an ADU solely because corrections are needed to address nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures elsewhere on the property that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are not affected by the construction of the ADU. This does not insulate the property owner from having to come into compliance where other projects unrelated to an ADU application are concerned.
Objective Standards. The Legislature has now inserted an express definition into the ADU law: An "objective" standard is a standard that involves "no personal or subjective judgment by a public official" and that is "uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal."
Proposed ADU Zoning Text Amendment
Staff has prepared several zoning text amendments (ZTA) that are intended primarily to align local ADU regulations with the State’s regulations. Minor amendments are also proposed to resolve previous wording and scrivener’s errors, as well as those intended to better organize ADU requirements. Staff’s markups to the ADU ordinance are shown in Attachment A with deletions shown in strike through ( text) and additions or changes shown in bolded, underlined, italics (text). A summary and explanation of each proposed ZTA is provided in the chart below.
Code Section Amendment Summary Purpose/Reason
23.80.030 “Definitions
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Update the definition to strike
provision requirements (eating,
cooking, sanitation, etc.) and
reference Manufactured Home
definition
This amendment to the
definition of ADU is necessary
to align with State law.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Objective Standards Add a definition for “objective
standards”
Because only objective standards
can regulate the placement and
design of ADUs, staff
recommends including the
State’s definition of objective
standards.
Permitting Agency Add a definition for “permitting
agency”
This amendment would adopt
the State’s definition of
permitting agency for clarity.
Attached Add a definition for “attached”
We currently do not define what
conditions constitute an attached
dwelling or structure. This
would provide direct to Planning
and Building staff for
determining which ADU
regulations (attached vs.
detached) apply to a proposal.
23.80.040 “Approvals”
(a) Ministerial Approval Strike (a)(2)(C) related limitations on expansions of existing ADUs
This expansion limitation on an
ADU created within an existing
accessory structure violates State
law.
Add a new subsection (a)(3)(C)
related to the height of an attached
ADU on a single-family lot
This new section references
another section within the ADU
ordinance, which reflects the
State’s ADU height regulations.
Amend (a)(4)(A) to require a 4-ft
side and rear setback
This amendment requires a
greater setback that is aligned
with State law.
Amend (a)(4)(C) to reference
height limitations listed in
23.80.060
This new section references
another section within the ADU
ordinance, which reflects the
State’s ADU height regulations.
Amend (a)(6) related to
applicability to include proposed
multi-family dwellings
This amendment specifies
applicability to both existing and
proposed multifamily
developments that include
ADUs.
Amend (a)(6)(A) to require a
4-foot side and rear setback
This amendment requires a
greater setback that is aligned
with State law.
Add new subsections allowing
ADUs in the front setback.
State law now permits an ADU
to encroach into a front setback
if there is insufficient area at the
side or rear of a home to
construct an ADU of up to 800
square feet.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Add a new subsection (B)
prohibiting the requirement to
modify an existing nonconforming
structure as a condition of
approval for an ADU, and reorder
subsequent sections
This section clarifies and
codifies State law prohibiting
conditions of approval for
ministerial ADU projects on
properties containing
nonconforming buildings.
Add a new subsection (C) to
reference height limitations listed
in 23.80.060
This new section references
another section within the ADU
ordinance, which reflects the
State’s ADU height regulations.
(b) Process and Timing
Add a new subsection (3) to adopt
a procedural requirement for ADU
and JADU applications denied by
the City
In accordance with new State
law, this section requires that,
when denying an application,
staff provide a full set of written
comments to include a list of
application deficiencies and
ways to remedy the deficiencies.
Add a new subsection (4)
clarifying the procedural
requirements for ADU and JADU
applications requiring demolition
of a detached garage
In accordance with State law,
this new procedure requires that
the City review an ADU
application and associated
demolition permit application
concurrently instead of
sequentially.
Add a new subsection (5)
exempting garage demolition
(associated with the above
subsection) from written notice
and placard requirements.
In accordance with State law,
this new procedure prohibits a
requirement for notice of a
demolition application
associated with the construction
of an ADU, unless the property
is located with an architecturally
or historically significant
historic district.
23.80.050 “General ADU and
JADU requirements”
Clarify in subsection (b) that the
construction of an ADU cannot
require installation of a fire
sprinkler system in an existing
primary dwelling (the main house)
In accordance with State law,
this section limits the City from
requiring that the main house on
the property with a proposed
ADU be retrofitted to install
sprinklers. This does not restrict
the City from requiring the ADU
to install a sprinkler system
when building code requires it.
Amend the existing requirement in
subsection (e) to reference a
“wastewater treatment system”
The current requirement
references a “water treatment
system”, which is not the
appropriate term for
sewer-related capture and
treatment. This was likely a
PGCC 7-5-2023
scrivener’s error.
Strike “or JADU” from subsection
(f)
This would require that only
ADUs are required to have a
separate address from the main
dwelling(s) on the property.
23.80.060 “Specific ADU
and JADU requirements”
(a) Size
Amend (a)(1) to specify distinct
maximum floor areas for detached
ADUs and attached ADUs
This amendment aligns the
City’s requirements with State
law, and it specifies a maximum
square footage for a detached
ADU (1,200 sq.ft.) and for an
attached ADU (no more than
50% of the existing home).
(b) Height
Strike and replace (1) and (2) to
establish distinct height limitations
for attached and detached ADUs
and limit them to 2 stories.
This amendment aligns the
City’s requirements with State
law pertaining to ADU height.
(d) Parking
Amend (3) to specify that
off-street parking is not required
for a JADU
This amendment aligns the
City’s requirements with State
law.
(e) Architectural
Requirements
Strike (e) pertaining to
architectural requirements
The State requires that all
standards pertaining to the
design of an ADU or a JADU
must meet the State’s definition
for objective standards. This
subsection for “architectural
requirements” does not meet the
State’s definition and is not
enforceable.
Staff recommends striking this
section until objective standards
can be prepared, vetted, and
adopted. Additional discussion is
provided under “Objective
Standards” of this staff report.
(f) Historical Protections Strike the subsection pertaining to Historical Protections.
The State requires that all
standards pertaining to the
design and placement of an ADU
or a JADU, including those
pertaining to historic protections
and compatibility, must meet the
State’s definition for objective
standards. The City does not
have objective historic standards
at this time that can be enforced
through historic review.
Staff recommends striking this
PGCC 7-5-2023
section until objective standards
can be prepared, vetted, and
adopted. Additional discussion is
provided under “Objective
Standards” of this staff report.
(g) Tree Removal and
Pruning Strike subsections (1)-(3)
Pursuant to State law, these are
not enforceable, as it is not an
objective standard and tree
preservation cannot impede or
impact the placement or size of
an ADU or JADU.
23.80.070 “Fees and charges”
(b) Utility Fees
Break the applicable utility fees
into subsection (1) and (2), and
reword the prohibition of a
connection fee or capacity charge
for clarity.
This is a non-substantive
amendment that reorganizes the
utility fees section.
23.80.080 “Nonconforming
ADUs and discretionary
approval.
Objective Standards
Staff recommends striking language pertaining to architectural review and historic review at this time only because the City of Pacific Grove does not have architectural review or historic protections that meet the State’s definition for “objective standards”. Because the architectural review and historic protections provisions of the existing ADU ordinance do not meet the State’s definition of “objective standards”, these sections as they are currently written are not enforceable. The City will not lose oversight over the design of ADUs by striking these sections, and retaining these sections in the updated ADU ordinance would not allow for enforcement at the staff- or committee/commission-level; instead, retaining these sections could render the City’s local ordinance null and void for non-compliance.
The City also has an obligation to comply with state law and to prepare and submit a compliant housing element. Pacific Grove has been meeting our previous Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through ADU construction, and we anticipate that ADU construction will be included in the updated Housing Element (currently being drafted) as a means of meeting our current RHNA. As a result, staff is concerned that adopting a non-compliant ADU ordinance could impact the State’s certification of Pacific Grove’s updated Housing Element, which could result in undesirable consequences and penalties including (builders remedy, ineligibility for State grants, etc.).
Staff recognizes and supports the importance of design and historic integrity to the community and to achieving the City’s goals and policies. We also recognize the importance of reducing risk to the City through compliance with State law. Staff is in the process of securing a consultant to prepare State-compliant objective design and development standards for residential development in Pacific Grove, including ADUs. The drafting of these standards will include a robust public input process for community stakeholders to participate in identifying the design and development priorities for residential development.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission considered these amendments to the City’s ADU Ordinance during their regularly scheduled meeting on May 11, 2023, and voted unanimously to forward the proposal to the PGCC 7-5-2023
City Council with a recommendation for approval.
Prior to voting on the item, the Planning Commission discussed the following topics:
Coastal Zone. Commissioners asked how this ordinance would impact accessory dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. Staff has attached a memo from John Ainsworth, Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission (CCC), regarding implementation of new ADU laws in the coastal zone. To summarize this memo, local governments must still abide by the requirements of their Local Coastal Programs (LCP) with regard to coastal resource protection, and the CCC recommends that local jurisdictions update their LPCs with Junior ADU and ADU provisions to align with State law. Because the City may amend its LCP only three time per year, staff recommends that the City initiate comprehensive updates to the LCP once objective design standards for ADUs are adopted.
Tree protection and preservation. Because the current subjective provisions with regard to tree preservation and pruning are proposed to be stricken from the current ADU ordinance, the Planning Commission requested that tree protection be considered for inclusion in objective standards and that staff encourage these activities to continue when processing ADU applications.
GOAL ALIGNMENT:
Increase Affordable Housing: Determine policies, projects and programs that will advance the effort to create new affordable housing in the City.
OPTIONS
The City Council’s options include the following:
Approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve these amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance.
1. 2. Approve the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance with changes; or
3. Continue the item to a later date.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Amending the ADU ordinance will not have an impact on the General Fund.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Affordable Housing
Attachments
ADU Draft Ordinance
Coastal Commission ADU Memo
PGCC 7-5-2023
Chapter 23.80
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
23.80.010 Purpose and intent.
23.80.020 Effect of nonconforming.
23.80.030 Definitions.
23.80.040 Approvals.
23.80.050 General ADU and JADU requirements.
23.80.060 Specific ADU and JADU requirements.
23.80.070 Fees and charges.
23.80.080 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.
23.80.010 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, as may be amended.
23.80.020 Effect of nonconforming.
An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this chapter will not be:
(a) Deemed to be inconsistent with the city’s general plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
(b) Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
(c) Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(d) Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in PGMC 23.80.030.
This does not prevent the city from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.
23.80.030 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, terms are defined as follows:
(a) “Accessory Dwelling Unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities and permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, sanitation, and connection to utilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence or multi-family residences and may include the following:
(1) Detached: the unit is separated from the primary structure or structures. (2) Attached: the unit is attached to the primary structure. (3) Converted Existing Space: space (e.g. bedroom, attached garage, storage area, or an accessory structure) on the lot of primary residence(s) that is PGCC 7-5-2023
converted into an independent living unit.
(4) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU): A specific type of conversion of existing space that is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family residence.
(5) Manufactured Home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
(6) Efficiency Unit.
(b) “Accessory structure” means a building or structure that is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot.
(c) “Attached” means a building which has at least part of a wall in common with another building, or which is connected to another building by a roof. (d) “Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
(e) “Efficiency Unit” means a unit that includes each of the following:
(1) Compliance with Section 17958.1 Health & Safety Code, as may be amended. (2) A food preparation counter or counters that are adequate for the unit. and (3) Food storage cabinets that are adequate for the unit. (f) “Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that:
(1) Is no more than 500 square feet in size.
(2) Is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. (3) Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure. and (4) Includes an efficiency unit, as defined in this chapter. (g) “Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (h) “Manufactured Home” means a unit as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code, as may be amended.
(i) “Ministerial approval” means approval related to a building permit that does PGCC 7-5-2023
not require discretionary action or a hearing.
(j) “Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(k) “Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. (l) “Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
(m)“Permitting agency” means any entity that is involved in the review of a permit for an ADU or JADU and for which there is no substitute, including, but not limited to, applicable planning departments, building departments, utilities, and special districts.
(n) “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
(o) “Public transit” means a fixed-route (bus stop or other transit stop) transportation that charges set fees, runs on fixed routes, and is available to the public. (p) “Tandem parking” means two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
23.80.040 Approvals
The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this section:
(a) Ministerial Approval. An ADU or JADU which complies with each of the general requirements in PGMC 23.80.050 is allowed with a building permit and shall not require discretionary planning approval. The ADU/JADU project shall be reviewed in a ministerial and administrative manner, limited to only considering the project’s compliance with the applicable objective standards.
(1) One ADU and one JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.
(2) Converted on a Single-family Lot:
(A) Created within the existing space of an accessory structure. (B) Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building codes.
(C) An ADU created within an existing accessory structure may expand an additional 150 sq. ft. if expansion is limited to accommodating ingress PGCC 7-5-2023
and egress only.
(3) Attached ADU on Single-Family Lot:
(A) Shall not exceed 50% of the square footage of proposed or existing building, or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is greater.
(B) Setbacks same as (2)(B) above.
(C) May be located at the front of the lot or in the front setback if sufficient area for an ADU up to 800 square feet does not exist at the rear or side of the primary dwelling unit.
(D) The height limitation as provided in PGMC 23.80.060. (4) Detached on Single-Family Lot.
(A) The side and rear yard setbacks are at least three feet. (B) May be located at the front of the lot or in the front setback if sufficient area for an ADU up to 800 square feet does not exist at the rear or side of the primary dwelling unit.
(C) The total maximum floor area is up to 1,200 square feet. And (D) The peak height above grade is 16 feet or less. height limitation as provided in PGMC 23.80.060.
(5) Converted on Multifamily Lot. Multiple ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. At least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, or up to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units may each have a converted ADU under this subsection. (6) Detached on Multi-family Lot. No more than two detached ADUs on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling if each detached ADU satisfies the following limitations:
(A) The side and rear yard setbacks are at least three feet. (corner and exterior setbacks for the zoning district apply); and
(B) If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side setback of less than three feet, the City shall not require any modification of the existing multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the PGCC 7-5-2023
application to construct an ADU.
(C) May be located at the front of the lot or in the front setback if sufficient area for an ADU up to 800 square feet does not exist at the rear or side of the primary dwelling unit.
(D) The height limitation as provided in PGMC 23.80.060. (E) The total floor area is 1,200 square feet or smaller. (7) Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU):
(A)Constructed entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure.
(B) Includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure. (C) Includes an efficiency unit as defined in this chapter. (b) Process and Timing.
(1) An ADU or JADU permit is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing, if it meets the minimum standards above. (2) The City must act on an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed application, unless either:
(A)The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay. or
(B)In the case of a JADU and the application to create a JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the City may delay acting on the permit application for the JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new singlefamily dwelling, but the application to create the JADU will be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. (3) If an application for an ADU or JADU is denied, the City shall, within the time period previously described, return in writing a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant. (4) A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU must be reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.
PGCC 7-5-2023
(5) The applicant shall not be otherwise required to provide written notice or post a placard for the demolition of a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU, unless the property is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
23.80.050 General ADU and JADU requirements
The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under PGMC 23.80.040(a):
(a) Zoning. An ADU or JADU subject only to a building permit under PGMC
23.80.040(a) may be created on a lot in any zone that allows residential uses. (b) Fire Sprinklers. Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence. The construction of the ADU shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
(c) Rental Term. An ADU or JADU may be rented under the following conditions:
(1) No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term less than 30 days, and (2) JADU – owner must reside in either the primary residence or the JADU per Government Code 65852.22, Subd. (a)(2), as may be amended. (d) No Separate Conveyance. No ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot) unless allowed by Gov. Code, § 65852.26 (Qualified nonprofit corporation conveyance). (e) Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site wastewater-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(f) Each ADU or JADU shall have a separate address from the single or multi- family dwelling on the property.
(g) Each ADU or JADU shall have a separate exterior access independent of the existing or proposed single or multi-family dwelling.
23.80.060 Specific ADU and JADU requirements.
(a) Size.
(1) The total maximum floor area for a detached ADU may be up to 1,200 square PGCC 7-5-2023
feet. The total floor area of an attached ADU shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling.
(2) The minimum size is 150 square feet to include efficiency unit. (3) A JADU shall not exceed 500 square feet.
(b) Height.
(1) A single-story, attached or detached ADU may not exceed 16 feet in height above grade, measured to the peak of the structure. (2) A second story or two-story attached ADU addition may be permitted subject to an architectural permit and may not exceed the height of the zoning district. (1) A detached ADU on a lot within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor may be up to 18 feet in height, with an allowance of an additional two feet to accommodate a roof pitch aligned with the primary dwelling.
(2) A detached ADU on a lot with an existing or proposed dwelling may be up to 18 feet in height.
(3) An attached ADU may be up to 25 feet in height or two stories, whichever is less.
(c) Passageway. No passageway, as defined in PGMC 23.80.030, is required for an ADU.
(d) Parking.
(1) Generally. Off-street parking is not required for an ADU located within onehalf mile walking distance of public transit. If a property is not within onehalf mile walking distance to a transit stop, one off-street parking space shall be provided and may be located in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined in PGMC 23.80.030.
(2) No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. (3) No off-street parking is required for a JADU.
(e) Architectural Requirements.
(1) Where the development of an ADU includes exterior alterations, additions, or construction of new structure, the ADU may, where feasible, incorporate the PGCC 7-5-2023
same or similar architectural features, building materials, including window style and materials, and roof slopes as the main dwelling unit or dwellings located on the subject property.
(f) Historical Protections. Historic review shall be required for properties listed on the California Register of Historic Resources.
(g) Tree Removal and Pruning. Tree permits for the removal and/or pruning of permit trees shall be required per PGMC Title 12, but shall in no way prohibit the development of a minimum 1,200 sq. ft. ADU.
(1) Applicants are encouraged to locate and design ADU and/or JADU additions so that the retention of native trees (Gowen cypress, Coast live oak, Monterey cypress, Shore pine, Torrey pine, and Monterey pine) can be accommodated whenever possible.
(2) All trees in or within 100 yards of designated Monarch sanctuaries. (Pruning and removal of trees within the Monarch sanctuaries is prohibited between October 1 and May 1).
(3) A Coastal Development Permit (CDP) may be required for tree removal in the Coastal zone.
23.80.070 Fees and charges.
(a) Impact Fees.
(1) No impact fee is required for an ADU or JADU that is less than 750 square feet in size.
(2) Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750 square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit (e.g., the floor area of the primary dwelling, divided by the floor area of the ADU, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.
(b) Utility Fees.
(1) Converted ADUs and JADUs on a single-family lot, created under PGMC
23.80.040(a)(1), are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility.
(2) Nor is a A connection fee or capacity charge is not required unless the ADU or JADU is constructed with a new single-family home dwelling.
PGCC 7-5-2023
23.80.080 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.
Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards set forth in this chapter may be allowed by the city with a use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.
The local agency shall not deny an application for a permit to create an ADU due to the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are not affected by the construction of the ADU.
PGCC 7-5-2023
STATE OF CALIFORNIA – CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
455 MARKET STREET, SUITE 300
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2421
VOICE (415) 904-5200
FAX (415) 904-5400
To: Planning Directors of Coastal Cities and Counties
From: John Ainsworth, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission Date: January 21, 2022
RE: Updates Regarding the Implementation of New ADU Laws _____________________________________________________________________________________ I. Introduction
California’s ongoing housing crisis continues to exacerbate housing inequity and affordability, especially in the coastal zone. To address this critical issue, the state Legislature has enacted a number of laws in the last several years that are designed to reduce barriers to providing housing and to encourage construction of additional housing units in appropriate locations. To this end, the 2019 legislative session resulted in a series of changes to state housing laws that facilitate the development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), which can help provide additional housing units that can be more affordable than other forms of market rate housing. Importantly, the changes did not modify existing provisions of state housing law that explicitly recognize that local governments must still abide by the requirements of the Coastal Act, and by extension, Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Thus, provisions on coastal resource protection must be incorporated into the planning and development process, and into updated LCP J/ADU requirements, when considering J/ADUs in the coastal zone.
The Coastal Commission strongly encourages local governments to update their LCPs with J/ADU provisions in a manner that harmonizes the State’s housing laws with the Coastal Act.
Doing so would protect the State’s coastal resources while also reducing barriers to constructing J/ADUs and helping to promote more affordable coastal housing.
The Coastal Commission has previously circulated three memos to assist local governments with understanding how to carry out their Coastal Act obligations while also implementing state requirements regarding the regulation of J/ADUs. These memos have raised some questions for local governments, including the manner in which they are to be understood together. In order to address this issue, and to reflect lessons learned regarding J/ADU regulation in the coastal zone in the past few years, this updated memo supersedes and replaces these prior memos.
This updated memo also elaborates on the changes to state housing laws that went into effect on January 1, 2020 and provides further information to help local governments harmonize these laws with the Coastal Act. This memo will briefly discuss the authority that the Coastal Act grants the Commission and local governments over housing in the coastal zone, new legislation regarding J/ADUs, how local governments can streamline J/ADU applications under the Coastal Act, and some key issues that should be considered when LCP amendments for J/ADU PGCC 7-5-2023
2 provisions are undertaken. This memo is intended to provide general guidance for local governments with fully certified LCPs. The Coastal Commission is responsible for Coastal Act review of J/ADUs in most areas that are not subject to a fully certified LCP. Local governments that have questions about specific circumstances not addressed in this memo should contact the appropriate district office of the Commission.
II. Coastal Act Authority Regarding Housing in the Coastal Zone The Coastal Act has a variety of provisions directly related to housing. Relevant here, the Coastal Act does not negate local government compliance with state and federal law “with respect to providing low- and moderate-income housing, replacement housing, relocation benefits, or any other obligation related to housing imposed by existing law or any other law hereafter enacted.” (Pub. Res. Code § 30007.) The Coastal Act also requires the Coastal Commission to encourage housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income households (Pub. Res. Code § 30604(f)) but states that “[n]o local coastal program shall be required to include housing policies and programs. (Pub. Res. Code § 30500.1.) Finally, new residential development must be “located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it” or in other areas where development will not have significant adverse effects on coastal resources. (Pub. Res. Code § 30250.) While the Commission does not currently have the explicit authority to provide or protect affordable housing in the coastal zone, the Commission has continued to preserve existing density and affordable housing whenever possible, including by supporting and encouraging the creation of J/ADUs. The creation of new J/ADUs in existing residential areas is one of many strategies that aims to increase the housing stock, including creating additional housing units of a type and size that can be more affordable than other forms of housing in the coastal zone, in a way that may be able to avoid significant adverse impacts on coastal resources.
III. Overview of New Legislation
As of January 1, 2020, AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, AB 670, AB 671, and SB 13 collectively updated existing Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 concerning local government review and approval of J/ADUs, and as of January 1, 2021, AB 3182 further updated the same laws, with the goal of increasing statewide availability of smaller, and potentially more affordable, housing units. Importantly, some of the changes affect local governments in the coastal zone and are summarized below.
• Local governments continue to have the discretion to adopt J/ADU provisions that are consistent with state law, and they may include specific requirements for protecting coastal resources and addressing issues such as design guidelines and protection of historic structures.
• Outside of an LCP context, existing or new J/ADU provisions that do not meet the requirements of the new legislation are null and void and will be substituted with the PGCC 7-5-2023
3 provisions of Section 65852.2(a) until the local government comes into compliance with new provisions. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(4).) However, existing J/ADU provisions contained in certified LCPs are not superseded by Government Code Section 65852.2 and continue to apply to Coastal Development Permit (CDP) applications for J/ADUs until the LCP is modified. Coastal jurisdictions without any J/ADU provisions or with existing J/ADU provisions that were adopted prior to January 1, 2020 are encouraged to update their LCPs to comply with the State’s new laws. Such new or updated LCP provisions need to ensure that new J/ADUs will protect coastal resources in the manner required by the Coastal Act and LCP, including, for example, by ensuring that new J/ADUs are not constructed in locations where they would require the construction of shoreline protective devices, in environmentally sensitive habitat areas and wetlands, or in areas where the J/ADU’s structural stability may be compromised by bluff erosion, flooding, or wave uprush over the structure’s lifetime. • A major change to Section 65852.2 is that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) now has an oversight role to ensure that local J/ADU provisions are consistent with state law. If a local government adopts an ordinance that HCD deems to be non-compliant with state law, HCD can notify the Office of the Attorney General. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(h)(3).) To ensure a smooth process, local governments should submit their draft J/ADU provisions to HCD and Coastal Commission staff to review for housing law and Coastal Act consistency before they are adopted locally and should continue to foster a three-way dialogue regarding any potential issues identified. Additionally, Coastal Commission and HCD staff meet regularly to discuss and resolve any issues that arise in the development of J/ADU provisions in the coastal zone. The Commission continues to prioritize J/ADU LCP amendments, and some may qualify for streamlined review as minor or de minimis amendments. (Pub. Res. Code § 30514(d); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 13554.) • In non-coastal zone areas, local governments are required to provide rapid, ministerial approval or disapproval of applications for permits to create J/ADUs, regardless of whether the local government has adopted updated J/ADU provisions. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(3).) In the coastal zone, CDPs are still necessary in most cases to comply with LCP requirements (see below); however, a local public hearing is not required, and local governments are encouraged to streamline J/ADU processes as much as feasible.
Other recent legislative changes clarify that local J/ADU provisions may not require a minimum lot size; owner occupancy of an ADU (though if there is an ADU and a JADU, one of them must be owner-occupied); fire sprinklers if such sprinklers are not required in the primary dwelling; a maximum square footage of less than 850 square feet for an ADU (or 1,000 square feet if the ADU contains more than one bedroom); and in some cases, off-street parking. Section 65852.2(a) lists additional mandates for local governments that choose to adopt a J/ADU PGCC 7-5-2023
4 ordinance, all of which set the “maximum standards that local agencies shall use to evaluate a proposed [ADU] on a lot that includes a proposed or existing single-family dwelling.” (Gov. Code § 65852.2(a)(6).) As indicated above, in specific cases coastal resource considerations may negate some such requirements, but only when tied to a coastal resource impact that would not be allowed under the Coastal Act and/or the LCP. In recent LCP amendments, these types of considerations have most often arisen in terms of the off-street parking provisions (see below).
IV. General Guidance for Reviewing J/ADU Applications
The following section lays out the general permitting pathway in which local governments can process J/ADU applications in a manner that is consistent with Coastal Act requirements and LCP provisions.
1) Check prior CDP history for the site.
Determine whether a CDP or other form of Coastal Act/LCP authorization was previously issued for development of the site and whether that CDP and/or authorization limits, or requires a CDP or CDP amendment for, changes to the approved development or for future development or uses of the site. The applicant should contact the appropriate Coastal Commission district office if a Commission-issued CDP and/or authorization affects the applicant’s ability to apply for a J/ADU.
2) Determine whether the proposed J/ADU constitutes “development.” As defined by the Coastal Act, development refers to both “the placement or erection of any solid material or structure” on land as well as any “change[s] in the density or intensity of use of land[.]” (Pub. Res. Code § 30106.) Most J/ADUs constitute development if they include, for example, new construction of a detached ADU, new construction of an attached J/ADU, or conversion of an existing, uninhabitable, attached or detached space to a J/ADU (such as a garage, storage area, basement, or mechanical room). The construction of new structures constitutes the “placement or erection of solid material,” and the conversion of existing, uninhabitable space would generally constitute a “change in the density or intensity of use.” Therefore, these activities would generally constitute development in the coastal zone that requires a CDP or other authorization. (Pub. Res. Code § 30600.) Unlike new construction, the conversion of an existing, legally established habitable space to a J/ADU within an existing residence, without removal or replacement of major structural components (e.g., roofs, exterior walls, foundations, etc.), and which does not change the intensity of use of the structure, may not constitute development within the definition in the Coastal Act. An example of a repurposed, habitable space that may not constitute new development (and thus does not require Coastal Act or LCP authorization) is the conversion of an existing bedroom within a primary structure.
PGCC 7-5-2023
5 Previously circulated Commission J/ADU memos (being superseded and replaced by this memo) indicated that construction or conversion of a J/ADU contained within or directly attached to an existing single-family residence (SFR) may qualify as development that was exempt from the requirement to obtain a CDP. Specifically, the Coastal Act and the Commission’s implementing regulations identify certain improvements to existing SFRs that are allowed to be exempted from CDP requirements (Pub. Res. Code § 30610(a); 14 Cal. Code Regs § 13250.) Although the Commission has previously certified some LCP amendments that permitted certain exemptions for such ADU development, in a recent action, the Commission reevaluated its position and found that “the creation of a selfcontained living unit, in the form of an ADU, is not an ‘improvement’ to an existing SFR.
Rather, it is the creation of a new residence. This is true regardless of whether the new ADU is attached to the existing SFR or is in a detached structure on the same property.” 1 On this basis, and based on the finding that a variety of types of J/ADUs—including both attached and detached J/ADUs—could have coastal resource impacts that make exemptions inappropriate, it rejected the local government’s proposed exemptions for certain J/ADUs. Local governments considering updating LCP J/ADU provisions should consider the Commission’s recent stance regarding exemptions for ADUs and may work with Commission staff to determine the best way to proceed on this issue. 3) If the proposed J/ADU constitutes development, determine whether a CDP waiver or other type of expedited processing is appropriate.
If a local government’s LCP includes a waiver provision, and the proposed J/ADU meets the criteria for a CDP waiver, the local government may issue a CDP waiver for the proposed J/ADU. The Commission has generally allowed a CDP waiver for proposed J/ADUs if the Executive Director determines that the proposed development is de minimis (i.e., it is development that has no potential for any individual or cumulative adverse effect on coastal resources and is consistent with all Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act). Such a finding can typically be made when the proposed J/ADU project has been sited, designed, and limited in such a way as to ensure any potential impacts to coastal resources are avoided (such as through habitat and/or hazards setbacks, provision of adequate off-street parking to ensure that public access to the coast is not impacted, etc.). (See Pub. Res. Code § 30624.7.) Projects that qualify for a CDP waiver typically allow for a reduced evaluation framework and streamlined approval.
Most, if not all, LCPs with CDP waiver provisions do not allow for waivers in areas where local CDP decisions are appealable to the Coastal Commission. There have been a variety of reasons for this in the past, including that the Commission’s regulations require that local governments hold a public hearing for all applications for appealable development (14 Cal.
Code Regs § 13566), and also that development in such areas tends to raise more coastal resource concerns and that waivers may therefore not be appropriate. However, under the state’s J/ADU provisions, public hearings are not required for qualifying development. 1 See Coastal Commission staff report, pp. 16-17 (Commission acted on this item on December 17, 2021).
PGCC 7-5-2023
6 Because of this, the above-described public hearing issue would not be a concern, so it could be appropriate for LCPs to allow CDP waivers in both appealable and non-appealable areas at least related to this criterion. Local governments should consult with Commission staff should they consider proposing CDP waiver provisions in their LCP. Any LCP amendment applications that propose to allow waivers in appealable areas should ensure that there are appropriate procedures for notifying the public and the Commission regarding approvals of individual, appealable waivers (such as Final Local Action Notices) so that the proper appeal period can be set, and any appeals received are properly considered.
The Coastal Act also provides for other streamlined processing for certain types of development, including for minor development. (Pub. Res. Code § 30624.9.) In certain cases, categories of development can also be excluded from CDP requirements if certain criteria are met (see box). In any case, local governments without such CDP waiver and other processing and streamlining tools are encouraged to work with Commission staff to amend their LCP to include such measures.
Coastal Act section 30610(e) allows certain categories of development that are specified in Commission-approved Categorical Exclusion (Cat Ex) Orders to be excluded from CDP requirements, provided that the category of development has no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. (See also 14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 13240 et seq.)
Cat Ex Orders apply to specific types of development within identified geographical locations. For example, the Commission may approve a Categorical Exclusion for J/ADUs that would normally require a CDP (i.e., it is defined as development) because that specific development type in that specific geographic area can be demonstrated to not result in individual and/or cumulative coastal resource impacts. Cat Ex Orders are prohibited from applying to: tide and submerged lands; beaches; lots immediately adjacent to the inland extent of any beach; lots immediately adjacent of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach; and public trust lands.
Cat Ex Orders provide another potential means of streamlining J/ADU consideration, and interested local governments should consult with Commission staff if they intend to propose such an Order. Cat Ex Orders are processed separately from LCP amendments, require a 2/3 vote of the Commission to be approved, and are typically subject to conditions. Once approved, the local government is responsible for reviewing development that might be subject to the Cat Ex Order and is typically required to report any exclusions applied pursuant to the Order to the Commission for review by the Executive Director and for an appeal period before they can become effective. It is important to note that while Cat Ex Orders can be a powerful tool if approved, the Commission must be able to conclude that the specific category of development in a specific geographic area has no potential for any significant adverse coastal resources impacts in order to approve one. Thus, the local government pursuing a Cat Ex Order must provide supporting documentation and evidence that can conclusively show that to be the case.
PGCC 7-5-2023
7 4) If a full CDP is required, review CDP application for consistency with certified LCP requirements.
If a proposed J/ADU constitutes development and cannot be processed as a waiver or similar expedited Coastal Act approval authorized in the certified LCP, it requires a CDP. The CDP must be consistent with the requirements of the certified LCP and, where applicable, the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act. The local government must then provide the required public notice for any CDP applications for J/ADUs and process the application pursuant to LCP requirements, but should process it within the time limits contained in the ADU law, if feasible. However, local governments are not required to hold a public hearing on CDPs for ADUs. (Gov. Code § 65852.2(l).) Once the local government has issued a decision, it must send the required final local action notice to the appropriate district office of the Commission. If the CDP is appealable, a local government action to approve a CDP for the ADU may be appealed to the Coastal Commission. (Pub. Res. Code § 30603.)
V. Key Considerations
Per Government Code Section 65852.2, subd. (l), known as the Coastal Act Savings Clause, the State’s new ADU requirements shall not be “construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976.” There are a number of key issues that local governments should account for in order to ensure their LCP J/ADU provisions are consistent with the requirements in the Coastal Act. This section addresses some of the key issues that the Commission has dealt with recently, including public coastal access parking requirements and protection of sensitive habitats and visual qualities. Local governments are encouraged to contact their local Coastal Commission district office for further assistance.
Protection of public recreational access in relation to parking requirements Government Code Section 65852.2 requirements regarding parking for J/ADUs are as follows:
a. One parking space is required per unit or per bedroom, whichever is less. The parking space can be a tandem space in an existing driveway.
b. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, no replacement parking space(s) are required.
However, Section 65852.2 further stipulates that the parking requirements listed above do not apply to ADUs constructed:
a. Within ½ mile walking distance of public transportation stops/routes; b. Within a historic district;
c. Within a primary residence or accessory structure;
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU;
PGCC 7-5-2023
8 e. And where a car-share vehicle is located within one block of the ADU.
Thus, the Government Code limits the circumstances when a local government can require a J/ADU project to address its parking needs onsite. This is a departure from most local government parking requirements which often explicitly specify the number of off-street parking spaces that must be provided onsite in any particular development, including residential development. The potential outcome is that private residential J/ADU parking needs can be shifted onto adjacent public streets. At the same time, the Coastal Act contains objectives and policies designed to protect and provide for maximum coastal access opportunities, which includes maintaining sufficient public coastal parking, including as implemented through LCP off-street parking provisions. The addition of J/ADUs may interfere with coastal public street parking availability if, for example, a garage is converted to a J/ADU and parking is not replaced onsite, in addition to the J/ADU parking demand itself. The Commission has often found that when private residential parking needs are not accommodated onsite, it can lead to increased use of on-street parking to address such needs, thereby reducing the availability of on-street parking to the general public. This may adversely affect public coastal access if it occurs in high visitor-serving areas and/or areas with significant public recreational access opportunities, and where on-street parking is heavily used. The result will be that the general public could be displaced from on-street parking by J/ADU parking needs, which may violate the Coastal Act’s requirements to protect, provide, and maximize public coastal access and recreational opportunities. In many impacted coastal neighborhoods, development patterns over the years have not adequately accounted for off-street parking needs, and adding J/ADU parking to the mix will only exacerbate such public parking difficulties.
Additionally, because general on-street parking is typically free or lower cost compared to other public parking facilities, J/ADU construction may also interfere with maintaining lower cost coastal access for all.
In order to avoid conflicts regarding parking requirements for J/ADUs as they may impact public access, local governments are encouraged to work with Commission staff to identify or map specific neighborhoods and locations where there is high visitor demand for public on-street parking needed for coastal access and to specify parking requirements for each such area that harmonizes Government Code requirements with the Coastal Act (and any applicable LCP policies). These maps can denote areas that supply important coastal public parking and access opportunities, and require that J/ADU development in these areas ensure that private residential parking needs are accommodated off-street. Importantly, such upfront LCP mapping and provisions allow the local government to address impacts to public access and parking supply without the need for a protracted, or even necessarily a discretionary, decision. The Commission has previously found that local governments may include specific off-street parking requirements for J/ADUs constructed in these locations and may also require maintenance of all off-street parking for the primary residence (see examples below). However, harmonizing the distinct priorities between the Coastal Act’s protection of public coastal access and the J/ADU provisions on parking requirements will require a case-by-case consideration of the specific circumstances of each jurisdiction.
PGCC 7-5-2023
9 Protection of sensitive habitats and visual qualities; avoidance of hazards While most J/ADU projects take place within established residential neighborhoods where potential coastal resource impacts are fairly limited, there can be cases where such projects may affect significant coastal resources, such as sensitive habitats and shorelines and beaches.
As a general rule, LCPs include many provisions protecting such resources, and it is important that proposed J/ADU provisions are not structured to undo any such LCP protections that already apply. J/ADUs may need to be reviewed for specific siting and design standards, particularly in visually sensitive areas (such as the immediate shoreline, between the first public road and the sea, near LCP-designated scenic areas, etc.). Similarly, where sensitive habitat may be present, J/ADUs must be reviewed for impacts to such habitat, including with respect to fuel modification for defensible space. Additionally, local governments should include provisions for J/ADUs constructed in areas vulnerable to sea level rise and other coastal hazards which ensure not only that these structures will meet all LCP requirements for new development to be safe from such hazards, but that also addresses the need for future sea level rise adaptations (including future accommodation or removal, risk disclosure conditions on the J/ADU, and any other risk-related issues dealt with in the LCP).
VI. Examples of Recently Updated ADU Provisions in Certified LCPs A number of local jurisdictions have recently updated their LCPs to include new J/ADU provisions. Coastal Commission staff reports are linked below, which summarize specific issues that arose between Coastal Act requirements and the new J/ADU provisions as well as the necessary changes that were made in order to harmonize each jurisdiction’s LCP with the State’s housing laws. The suggested modifications shown in the staff reports were all approved by the Coastal Commission.
City of Santa Cruz (approved May 2021). This LCP amendment included clarifying language to address which provisions of the new state housing laws applied to ADUs in the coastal zone of the City of Santa Cruz as well as ensuring that the coastal resource protection provisions of the City’s current LCP are maintained. The amendment also addressed specific off-street parking requirements for ADUs sited near significant coastal visitor destinations. The City of Santa Cruz adopted the Commission’s modifications in August 2021.
City of Pacifica (approved June 2021). This LCP amendment revised the City’s Implementation Plan to incorporate J/ADU provisions that are in line with the updated state housing laws, including streamlined procedures for J/ADU review and permitting processing, providing J/ADU development standards, and crafting tailored modifications to address specific public access parking needs in key visitor destination areas. The City of Pacifica adopted the Commission’s modifications in August 2021.
County of San Mateo (approved July 2021). This LCP amendment incorporated more specific ADU regulations relating to size limits, maximum number of J/ADUs permitted per lot, streamlined review and process of J/ADU permits, and parking availability in areas that are PGCC 7-5-2023
10 significant coastal visitor destinations. The County of San Mateo adopted the Commission’s modifications in September 2021.
City of Encinitas (approved August 2021). The Coastal Commission approved revisions to the City of Encinitas’ Implementation Plan that updated existing definitions for ADUs and JADUs and clarified development standards for accessory units, including standards for size, height, and setbacks.
City of Santa Barbara (approved December 2021). The Coastal Commission approved Commission staff’s revision of the City of Santa Barbara’s LCP amendment submittal addressing updated ADU provisions to be consistent with state housing laws. The amendment revised J/ADU terms and definitions, building standards, parking requirements, and permitting review and processing procedures. The staff report included modifications that address the CDP exemption issue (discussed above).
This document was developed using federal financial assistance provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, under award NA20NOS4190101, administered by the Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Agenda No. 12 A
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
300 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, California 93950
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Tori Hannah, Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager MEETING DATE: July 05, 2023
SUBJECT: Actuarial Analysis for the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans 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 the report and presentation
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item
DISCUSSION
The City Council requested an actuarial study on the CalPERS Miscellaneous and Safety Plans. The actuarial study includes reference to the following topics, as wells as additional information:
Overview of the increase in the Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) following the issuance of pension obligation bonds
A regional comparison of CalPERS pension information
Analysis of the impact of pay increases on the UAL and the City's unfunded liability payment Options to reduce the City's unfunded liability or smooth the City's annual pension payments through the use of a Section 115 Trust
The attached actuarial report contains in-depth technical information. A Summary Memo has been provided to assist in reviewing the data. Doug Pryor, Senior Consulting Actuary, ASA, EA, MAAA, from Foster and Foster (previously Bartel Associates), will provide a presentation of the results and will be available for questions at the Council Meeting.
OPTIONS
1. Receive report
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
FOCUSED PRIORITY AREA: Not Applicable.
PGCC 7-5-2023
Attachments
Consultant PPT
Actuarial Report_Summary Memo
Actuarial Analysis Report
PGCC 7-5-2023
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
CALPERS MISCELLANEOUS & SAFETY PLANSCalPERS Analysis – 6/30/21 Valuation Doug Pryor, ASA, EA, MAAABianca Lin, FSA, EA, MAAA Wai Man Yam Foster & Foster, Inc.
June 21, 2023
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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: $175,250 PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 2023 7
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
CalPERS Benefit Formulas1
1 City formulas shown in colored lines
1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Miscellaneous
2%@60 2%@55 2.5%@55 2.7%@55 3%@60 PEPRA 2%@62
Retirement Age
Be
ne
fit M
ult
ipl
ier
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 2023 8
HOW WE GOT HERE – DEMOGRAPHIC
CalPERS Benefit Formulas2
2 City formulas shown in colored lines
1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Safety
2%@55 2%@50 3%@55 3%@50PEPRA 2%@57 PEPRA 2.5%@57 PEPRA 2.7%@57 PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 2023 26
PLAN FUNDED STATUS - MISCELLANEOUS
City CalPERS Assets and Actuarial Liability ($Millions)9 9 Projected 2022 assets reflects -7.5% CalPERS investment return for 2021/22.
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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.
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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 PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 2023 21
UAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
6/30/21 Funded Ratio Comparison with Other Cities
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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 PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 2023 12
CALPERS CHANGES
Risk Mitigation Strategy
Likely Future Discount Rate/Investment Return Impact
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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 Increase3% 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 21, 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 Increase3% 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 21, 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
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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 Increase3% 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 21, 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 Increase3% 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 21, 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 PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 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 21, 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.
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 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 21, 2023 95
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Miscellaneous
PGCC 7-5-2023
June 21, 2023 98
IRREVOCABLE SUPPLEMENTAL (§115) PENSION TRUST
Illustration - Safety
PGCC 7-5-2023
Memorandum
July 12, 2023
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 620 San Mateo, CA 94402 ꞏ (650) 377-1600 ꞏ www.foster-foster.com To: Tori Hannah
Administrative Services Director / Assistant City Manager City of Pacific Grove
From: Doug Pryor
Senior Consulting Actuary
Foster & Foster
Re: City of Pacific Grove
CalPERS Actuarial Analysis
The City engaged Foster & Foster (formerly Bartel Associates) to analyze the following issues with respect to the City’s CalPERS Safety and Miscellaneous employee retirement plans:
Why the City has an Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) after the City issued Pension Obligation Bonds (POB’s) in 2006 to pay off the UAL at that time.
Comparison of the City’s UAL with other local cities. Cost impact of the 3% COLA provided for Safety and Miscellaneous at the beginning of 2022/23. Cost impact of a potential 2% COLA for Safety and Miscellaneous effective July 1, 2023. Expected future required CalPERS contributions and how a Section 115 Supplemental Trust can be used by the City for rate stabilization.
Following is a summary of the full report on these issues contained in the Council packet.
Changes in the Unfunded Liability Following the Pension Obligation Bond The City issued a $19.4 million POB in 2006 to pay off the Miscellaneous and Safety Plan CalPERS unfunded liabilities. We estimate the unfunded liability for these plans has grown to approximately $53.1 million as of June 30, 2022. Pages 17 and 18 summarize the primary reasons and associated dollar amounts of the increase including:
CalPERS changed their methodology in 2013 for how costs were allocated within the risk pool. This changed allocated costs from a payroll basis to liability basis. Due to the City having eliminated fire services (but not the fire liability for retirees), the City had a disproportionately low payroll allocation. Decrease in the discount rate over time, from 7.75% in 2006, to 6.8% currently. Note that the lower the discount rate, which represents the long term expected return on assets, the higher the liability. Investment returns below what was assumed, after including the impact of the asset allocation to the City when CalPERS methodology changed in 2013.
Comparative Information with Other Cities
Comparative data related to other cities within the region are provided on pages 19-21. A comparison on the UAL to salaries is a common benchmark. The City’s Safety UAL as a percentage of payroll on page 20 is significantly greater than other cities. This is primarily the result of the City contracting out fire services and retaining the original liability. The City’s UAL is now based on comparing the police salaries to the City’s UAL which includes the liability for both for police officers and the original firefighters. On page 21, the City’s funded ratio (ratio of assets to Actuarial Accrued Liability) as compared to other cities may be lower based on additional plan contributions by other entities and/or second pension tiers that were added.
PGCC 7-5-2023